Ack! I'd only found this one entry last night when I went upstairs to put Zack to bed and inadvertently fell asleep myself! Everybody have at this one for now, I'll beef this up with more material tomorrow.
|
|
|---|
Caption Contest Apertif!
Ack! I'd only found this one entry last night when I went upstairs to put Zack to bed and inadvertently fell asleep myself! Everybody have at this one for now, I'll beef this up with more material tomorrow.
jesus&mo: often
have you been told to respect others' religion, or more to the point, shut the fuck up? well, i have, and recently too, although i must say that it's extremely rare... not exactly often. to that, i say, quite simply, no.
so i relish posting the latest jesus&mo.
click over to the source to read
so i relish posting the latest jesus&mo.
click over to the source to read
Best Actor 1973: Marlon Brando in Last Tango in Paris
Marlon Brando received his seventh Oscar nomination for portraying Paul in Last Tango in Paris.
Last Tango in Paris is about an affair between a young Parisian and an older American who have a liaison with no names, and no conditions, for awhile at least.
Marlon Brando performance in this film certainly has a reputation that proceeds. I have heard from many sources touting this as not only Brando's best performance, but also one of if not the best performance ever. Well I must say that certainly does automatically effect your preconceptions but it should not define your conception of the performance, and it certainly does not define mine.
It is a common criticism of various accolades given to the most of something rather than the actual best, well I think that can actually be allotted to this performance by Marlon Brando, since if there is one thing for sure this is one acting performance. The whole character is constantly doing something that is extremely dramatic psychological, crazy, whatever, this character never seems to stop baring his soul, and is almost the polar opposite of Jack Nicholson's nominated character from this year.
Brando most normal scenes, I think, come early in the film where he shows the greif over his wife's recent suicide. Brando I think is extremely good in this portrayal of greif, becuase he shows clearly that this has deeply wounded Paul that has pained him right into the emotional core, and his this portrayal of greif does a fairly well establish the mental state of his character, and partially explain his course of action in the film.
Paul decides to start a liaison with a Parisian woman Jeanne (Maria Schneider), the relationship does not have much of a pick up scene though, since they really just begin the affair immediately with no strings attached, and not too much of an explanation either. They do, which means it is time for Brando to act, and act a lot, with deep soul searching not stop.
Now although I did see as fairly actory, I still feel he manages in the character of Paul somewhat, not just of Marlon Brando himself. My only real problem was though I think he does indeed portray an original character, I don't think he really completely understands who Paul is suppose to be precisely. Brando supposedly said he did not understand the point of the film, and I did feel some of that come through with his performance, in that I felt he had great scenes, but they did not fit into an amazing whole.
I never truly understood, although I do not think I was really suppose to, why he would react to his greif in this specific and rather odd way. Nor did I understand where this man came from, and why frankly his behavior was as erratic as it was, particularly when he became sadistic. Now part of his character is suppose to be a mystery really, but what I did see I felt was many parts of a character, but still missing something that melded the whole of him as one.
This not to say Brando does not have some exceedingly fascinating scenes, and moments. Whether it is his scene where he talks dirty, his scene where he tells about how he learned to love nature, the butter scene, his crazed antics on the dance floor, his big scene next to his wife's dead body, Brando certainly is interesting to watch, and does make a great amount of interesting moments. But I always felt they were just that interesting, not amazing.
The whole performance for me was most certainly a spectacle to watch, as Brando never stops doing something different in the role, but I must admit I did not feel it turned out to be a perfect performance, and I always far from the greatest performance of all time. In fact I did not even feel it was great, but rather just interesting. It is interesting to view, but not incredible to view, it just always feels as a performance that is less than the sum of its parts.
Marlon Brando performance in this film certainly has a reputation that proceeds. I have heard from many sources touting this as not only Brando's best performance, but also one of if not the best performance ever. Well I must say that certainly does automatically effect your preconceptions but it should not define your conception of the performance, and it certainly does not define mine.
It is a common criticism of various accolades given to the most of something rather than the actual best, well I think that can actually be allotted to this performance by Marlon Brando, since if there is one thing for sure this is one acting performance. The whole character is constantly doing something that is extremely dramatic psychological, crazy, whatever, this character never seems to stop baring his soul, and is almost the polar opposite of Jack Nicholson's nominated character from this year.
Brando most normal scenes, I think, come early in the film where he shows the greif over his wife's recent suicide. Brando I think is extremely good in this portrayal of greif, becuase he shows clearly that this has deeply wounded Paul that has pained him right into the emotional core, and his this portrayal of greif does a fairly well establish the mental state of his character, and partially explain his course of action in the film.
Paul decides to start a liaison with a Parisian woman Jeanne (Maria Schneider), the relationship does not have much of a pick up scene though, since they really just begin the affair immediately with no strings attached, and not too much of an explanation either. They do, which means it is time for Brando to act, and act a lot, with deep soul searching not stop.
Now although I did see as fairly actory, I still feel he manages in the character of Paul somewhat, not just of Marlon Brando himself. My only real problem was though I think he does indeed portray an original character, I don't think he really completely understands who Paul is suppose to be precisely. Brando supposedly said he did not understand the point of the film, and I did feel some of that come through with his performance, in that I felt he had great scenes, but they did not fit into an amazing whole.
I never truly understood, although I do not think I was really suppose to, why he would react to his greif in this specific and rather odd way. Nor did I understand where this man came from, and why frankly his behavior was as erratic as it was, particularly when he became sadistic. Now part of his character is suppose to be a mystery really, but what I did see I felt was many parts of a character, but still missing something that melded the whole of him as one.
This not to say Brando does not have some exceedingly fascinating scenes, and moments. Whether it is his scene where he talks dirty, his scene where he tells about how he learned to love nature, the butter scene, his crazed antics on the dance floor, his big scene next to his wife's dead body, Brando certainly is interesting to watch, and does make a great amount of interesting moments. But I always felt they were just that interesting, not amazing.
The whole performance for me was most certainly a spectacle to watch, as Brando never stops doing something different in the role, but I must admit I did not feel it turned out to be a perfect performance, and I always far from the greatest performance of all time. In fact I did not even feel it was great, but rather just interesting. It is interesting to view, but not incredible to view, it just always feels as a performance that is less than the sum of its parts.
Guillermo Del Toro on New Live-Action "Incredible Hulk" TV Series
From worstpreviews, Back in November, it was revealed that Marvel and ABC are working on a new live-action "Incredible Hulk" TV series, and Guillermo Del Toro is on board to write and direct the pilot episode, in addition to overseeing the look of the character.
Now, in an interview with FEARnet, the helmer gave an update on the series, confirming that everything is moving along nicely. "We turned in the outline to ABC about four weeks ago," he said. "And then we did a rewrite for ABC on the outline, and now we are lining up the pages."
When asked if the Hulk will be different from what we have previously seen. "I think so. Or we wouldn't be trying it," he replied. "Actually, one of the points of this project early on with Marvel was 'We're going to do this thing different and here's how. Are you interested?' And they were."
While most of the details of the series are being kept a secret, it was revealed last year that Bruce Banner will be in his 20's and that the Hulk will be a mix of CGI and practical effects.
William Shatner's "The Captains" Documentary
From worstpreviews, A few days ago, we showed you a photo of William Shatner arm wrestling with Chris Pine (pictured), who both played Captain James T Kirk in "Star Trek."
It turned out that this is all apart of "The Captains" documentary that Shatner is shooting, which features the actor sitting down with all of "Star Trek's" captains, like Patrick Stewart, Kate Mulgrew, Avery Brooks, Scott Bakula and Pine.
Today, we have a short trailer for the movie that will premiere at Comic-Con next month and will air online at the Epix website (Friday, July 22nd at 8pm EDT). Immediately after the screening, there will be a questions and answers session hosted by Kevin Smith.
our lady of the rings
wired interviews carolyn porco!
click image to source
snip
wired.com: so if you had a lineup of enceladus, titan and europa, which are always brought up as good targets for astrobiology, which would you choose?
porco: oh, enceladus wins hands down. titan has no liquid water on its surface and any liquid water beneath its surface is inaccessible to us, as far as we know. it has hydrocarbon lakes, but we don’t know of any organisms that could live in those, not at the temperatures that we find on titan. any reference to possible life in lakes on the surface of titan is pure speculation.
we do know of subsurface earth ecologies that could thrive in the subsurface environment on enceladus. now that we know there’s salty water there, that shows there’s liquid water in contact with rock. biotic chemistry could occur that we know exists in volcanic environments miles underneath earth’s surface, where liquid water percolates through hot rocks.
as far as europa goes, europa very likely has an ocean under its surface. in that regard, europa and enceladus are on equal par. but on europa, the ocean is at least several kilometers under the surface and the moon is bathed in an intense radiation field. we can’t go there and just drill several kilometers down because the intense radiation field would fry a properly equipped spacecraft in several months.
so while there could indeed be life within the ocean of europa, it is presently inaccessible. the beauty of enceladus is all you have to do is land on the surface, look up and stick your tongue out. it could be snowing microbes at the south pole. we would be foolish not to head back there immediately.
/snip
yes! yes! i'm betting on enceladus!
the entire chat here.
more on carolyn porco and cassini and ciclops
click image to source
snip
wired.com: so if you had a lineup of enceladus, titan and europa, which are always brought up as good targets for astrobiology, which would you choose?
porco: oh, enceladus wins hands down. titan has no liquid water on its surface and any liquid water beneath its surface is inaccessible to us, as far as we know. it has hydrocarbon lakes, but we don’t know of any organisms that could live in those, not at the temperatures that we find on titan. any reference to possible life in lakes on the surface of titan is pure speculation.
we do know of subsurface earth ecologies that could thrive in the subsurface environment on enceladus. now that we know there’s salty water there, that shows there’s liquid water in contact with rock. biotic chemistry could occur that we know exists in volcanic environments miles underneath earth’s surface, where liquid water percolates through hot rocks.
as far as europa goes, europa very likely has an ocean under its surface. in that regard, europa and enceladus are on equal par. but on europa, the ocean is at least several kilometers under the surface and the moon is bathed in an intense radiation field. we can’t go there and just drill several kilometers down because the intense radiation field would fry a properly equipped spacecraft in several months.
so while there could indeed be life within the ocean of europa, it is presently inaccessible. the beauty of enceladus is all you have to do is land on the surface, look up and stick your tongue out. it could be snowing microbes at the south pole. we would be foolish not to head back there immediately.
/snip
yes! yes! i'm betting on enceladus!
the entire chat here.
more on carolyn porco and cassini and ciclops
Best Actor 1973: Al Pacino in Serpico
Al Pacino received his second Oscar nomination for portraying Frank Serpico in Serpico.
Serpico tells the story of Frank Serpico who refused to adhere to police corruption despite it being all around him.
Frank Serpico as a character is one of some repetition that is sure. It is a lot of him coming into a new part of the police in New York City seeing some sort of corruption and responding to it publicly in a low key fashion, although becoming more upset by it in more private settings. In between being upset by corruption he usually gets upset by his current wife, and yells at her, or responds quietly to her.
I don't know Pacino's performance here just never really amazes it me as it does seem to some. In the early scenes Pacino sets up how his character reacts with a quiet passion at first over the corruption he sees, and he keeps reacting in that same way throughout, thrown in with some angry disbelief over the ability of others to actually help him, and his feelings of danger by putting his neck out.
I don't know his whole plight never became as interesting as it seems it should have, because Pacino I feel should have done even more to show how the problems really stacked on Serpico in a better fashion, rather than just that tired face, along with the occasional scene of yelling. It always seemed to be less than Serpico really could have been in this film.
I think the whole incredible honesty of Serpico really needed to be better explored by both the film, and Pacino's performance. Was all what he did because of his nature, or because of of something else, I really felt Pacino really needed to more heavily develop what about Serpico made him want to be so honest, since it was not just to be a descent guy since frankly he does not seem to be always one.
Also another problem I had with his performance was his relationships with his two major wives. I will admit they are not helped by the two rather stilted performances by the actresses playing his wives, but Pacino himself does not create a very interesting relationship either. The relationships in the film feel rather cold, by the lack of energy Pacino puts in them, nor are they made into another type of relationship, like say mutual desperation or something like that, none of the three actors develops the relationship into anything the least bit interesting.
Pacino has yet anther problem I feel and that is Serpico whole odd policeman persona, when he slowly seems to become more and more unlike a cop as the film progresses with his growing beard, and continually more hippie like clothing. Why does Serpico do this other than for cover, and one would think it would be more than just for cover, never is realized, is it because he is really a hippie, or anti establishment or something, I don't know the film, and Pacino just do not develop it well enough.
Although I have been very negative I think up until this point, I do not think this is really a bad performance, but just a lacking one that could have been a lot more. Pacino certainly has good moments throughout, and he is believable as well as technically realistic, I just never felt what he did amounted to any sort of an interesting characterization or performance.
Frank Serpico as a character is one of some repetition that is sure. It is a lot of him coming into a new part of the police in New York City seeing some sort of corruption and responding to it publicly in a low key fashion, although becoming more upset by it in more private settings. In between being upset by corruption he usually gets upset by his current wife, and yells at her, or responds quietly to her.
I don't know Pacino's performance here just never really amazes it me as it does seem to some. In the early scenes Pacino sets up how his character reacts with a quiet passion at first over the corruption he sees, and he keeps reacting in that same way throughout, thrown in with some angry disbelief over the ability of others to actually help him, and his feelings of danger by putting his neck out.
I don't know his whole plight never became as interesting as it seems it should have, because Pacino I feel should have done even more to show how the problems really stacked on Serpico in a better fashion, rather than just that tired face, along with the occasional scene of yelling. It always seemed to be less than Serpico really could have been in this film.
I think the whole incredible honesty of Serpico really needed to be better explored by both the film, and Pacino's performance. Was all what he did because of his nature, or because of of something else, I really felt Pacino really needed to more heavily develop what about Serpico made him want to be so honest, since it was not just to be a descent guy since frankly he does not seem to be always one.
Also another problem I had with his performance was his relationships with his two major wives. I will admit they are not helped by the two rather stilted performances by the actresses playing his wives, but Pacino himself does not create a very interesting relationship either. The relationships in the film feel rather cold, by the lack of energy Pacino puts in them, nor are they made into another type of relationship, like say mutual desperation or something like that, none of the three actors develops the relationship into anything the least bit interesting.
Pacino has yet anther problem I feel and that is Serpico whole odd policeman persona, when he slowly seems to become more and more unlike a cop as the film progresses with his growing beard, and continually more hippie like clothing. Why does Serpico do this other than for cover, and one would think it would be more than just for cover, never is realized, is it because he is really a hippie, or anti establishment or something, I don't know the film, and Pacino just do not develop it well enough.
Although I have been very negative I think up until this point, I do not think this is really a bad performance, but just a lacking one that could have been a lot more. Pacino certainly has good moments throughout, and he is believable as well as technically realistic, I just never felt what he did amounted to any sort of an interesting characterization or performance.
Mark
Wherever you may go in life, leave your mark... not necessarily, this way though.
VIEW THE ACTION HERE
VIEW THE ACTION HERE
Hump Day results
Sorry about the last minute results. I have no excuse. Octopunk gets the win this week with this one-two punch:
Well my stomach feels better but I still have the splitting headache. Whatever, I'm outta here, pukeface!
I’m at a loss for words because it’s just so very, very wrong for so many reasons. In Octo’s twisted brain, Thelma (did you know her name is Thelma?) casually vomits on PJ, mocks him and then abandons him, presumably by himself. It’s all the more appalling when you take PJ’s innocent and helpless expression into consideration.
Equally intriguing (though not nearly as shocking) was Octo's take on The Flintstones.
Panel 1
On the sign: The Comet is Coming
Fred (thinks): Weird. Why is that crazy guy hanging out in a residential neighborhood where few can see him?
Panel 2
Fred (thinks): Well, I can afford to be detachedly amused, as I'm home from work and surely he has no bearing on my situation...
Panel 3
Wilma: Look, Fred! It's me from the future. Apparently everything dies in twenty years and we're the only ones that make it. That's you out front, by the way...
Excellent work Octo!
Well my stomach feels better but I still have the splitting headache. Whatever, I'm outta here, pukeface!
I’m at a loss for words because it’s just so very, very wrong for so many reasons. In Octo’s twisted brain, Thelma (did you know her name is Thelma?) casually vomits on PJ, mocks him and then abandons him, presumably by himself. It’s all the more appalling when you take PJ’s innocent and helpless expression into consideration.
Equally intriguing (though not nearly as shocking) was Octo's take on The Flintstones.
Panel 1
On the sign: The Comet is Coming
Fred (thinks): Weird. Why is that crazy guy hanging out in a residential neighborhood where few can see him?
Panel 2
Fred (thinks): Well, I can afford to be detachedly amused, as I'm home from work and surely he has no bearing on my situation...
Panel 3
Wilma: Look, Fred! It's me from the future. Apparently everything dies in twenty years and we're the only ones that make it. That's you out front, by the way...
Excellent work Octo!
marriage equality in all states
right after the vote in NY, i was motivated to create a little celebration logo -- last night, i went ahead and made one for each state. here's the contact:
click to enlarge
click to enlarge
JPX loves puzzles
My latest obsession is 1970s era television jigsaw puzzles. In particular I’m quite taken with the sci-fi themed puzzles although if a Fonzie puzzle found its way into my bed I wouldn’t kick it out. I’ve made a bunch of puzzles recently and I’ve concluded that I like the 200 piece puzzles the most because they are not challenging at all and I can usually finish one in 30 minutes, which is the approximate length of an Alfred Hitchcock Presents episode (my other recent obsession). Above is my latest puzzle. I found this at the Brimfield Antique Show (largest flea market in the U.S.) for a sweet $5. The vendor assured me that the puzzle was “complete”, but of course it was missing 1 piece, which makes me mental. I love this puzzle because it’s so confusing; what the hell is going on in this scene? Why is Kirk so upset and why is Spock so nonplussed?
half theist, half atheist
'neurologist vs ramachandran explains the case of split-brain patients with one hemisphere without a belief in a god, and the other with a belief in a god.'
at 2006 beyond belief conference -- the full talk here.
at 2006 beyond belief conference -- the full talk here.
Best Actor 1973: Jack Nicholson in The Last Detail
Jack Nicholson received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Signalman 1st Class Billy L. "Bad Ass" Buddusky in The Last Detail.
The Last Detail tells the story of two naval petty officers Badass, and Mule (Otis Young) who have to transfer a very small time thief Seaman Larry Meadows (Randy Quaid) to the brig, but at the same time they try to provide a little bit of adventure and life experiences for the soon to be imprisoned young man.
Jack Nicholson has a rather interesting role in the film, since although he is the main character he really is not exactly the focus of the film precisely. It instead interestingly focuses on how he reacts to the naive Larry. It is a interesting dynamic, that might seem not seem conducive to developing a fully realized character, by Nicholson does this without fault, and it is fascinating that he does through his role that never really stops to tell specifically about Buddusky.
Nicholson though portrays this role with absolute ease, and charisma, it is another seventies Nicholson performance which really does mean a whole lot. In this decade Nicholson just has something else that no other actor ever hard is going to have. He is this unique presence and technique that is simply unforgettable in his nominated performances of this decade including this performance.
Nicholson develops a rather fascinating character in Buddusky because he is a career naval man, who does most certainly does his job thoroughly, and despite having problems with it he does not obviously hate it, yet still has an air of anti-establishment sentiment at the same time. It is an incredibly interesting mix of a character that Nicholson pulls off without a fault.
Nicholson is great in this part because he portrays it in an especially dead on realistic fashion throughout. Due to this fact, his somewhat reactionary performance is simply amazing at times. I think in particularly strong moments are when it shows how much he really pity and feels for Larry. Two extremely powerful moments of this aspect are probably his reaction to seeing the inside of Larry's home, or when he really contemplates what will happen to Larry.
This performance is not all reactionary though, and since it is a 70's Nicholson performance this of course has some classic Nicholson moments. The best of is of course when he confronts the racist bar tender who won't serve Larry, and right after that scene where he proclaims his badassery. Nicholson just has an amazing visceral energy, that is incomparable, and just incredible to watch. It also always works in these performances though because each scene in these performances although distinctly Nicholson, also always makes them distinctly the character he is playing, because Nicholson most certianly is a complete bad ass as bad ass.
Nicholson performance is just an amazing piece of acting, because I felt I really did meet Bad Ass Budusky in this film, and spent time with him as he did this job, and attempted to teach, or show Larry something. It is a strong piece of work becuase he develops Budusky so smoothly, and never does he ever seem like he is acting, even in his scenes that only Jack Nicholson could possibly do. It amazing to see how Nicholson truly develops a unique characterization and manages to create an outstanding memorable character without ever having a single scene that is obviously written just to develop his character. This is a great achievement by Nicholson that is all there is to it.
Jack Nicholson has a rather interesting role in the film, since although he is the main character he really is not exactly the focus of the film precisely. It instead interestingly focuses on how he reacts to the naive Larry. It is a interesting dynamic, that might seem not seem conducive to developing a fully realized character, by Nicholson does this without fault, and it is fascinating that he does through his role that never really stops to tell specifically about Buddusky.
Nicholson though portrays this role with absolute ease, and charisma, it is another seventies Nicholson performance which really does mean a whole lot. In this decade Nicholson just has something else that no other actor ever hard is going to have. He is this unique presence and technique that is simply unforgettable in his nominated performances of this decade including this performance.
Nicholson develops a rather fascinating character in Buddusky because he is a career naval man, who does most certainly does his job thoroughly, and despite having problems with it he does not obviously hate it, yet still has an air of anti-establishment sentiment at the same time. It is an incredibly interesting mix of a character that Nicholson pulls off without a fault.
Nicholson is great in this part because he portrays it in an especially dead on realistic fashion throughout. Due to this fact, his somewhat reactionary performance is simply amazing at times. I think in particularly strong moments are when it shows how much he really pity and feels for Larry. Two extremely powerful moments of this aspect are probably his reaction to seeing the inside of Larry's home, or when he really contemplates what will happen to Larry.
This performance is not all reactionary though, and since it is a 70's Nicholson performance this of course has some classic Nicholson moments. The best of is of course when he confronts the racist bar tender who won't serve Larry, and right after that scene where he proclaims his badassery. Nicholson just has an amazing visceral energy, that is incomparable, and just incredible to watch. It also always works in these performances though because each scene in these performances although distinctly Nicholson, also always makes them distinctly the character he is playing, because Nicholson most certianly is a complete bad ass as bad ass.
Nicholson performance is just an amazing piece of acting, because I felt I really did meet Bad Ass Budusky in this film, and spent time with him as he did this job, and attempted to teach, or show Larry something. It is a strong piece of work becuase he develops Budusky so smoothly, and never does he ever seem like he is acting, even in his scenes that only Jack Nicholson could possibly do. It amazing to see how Nicholson truly develops a unique characterization and manages to create an outstanding memorable character without ever having a single scene that is obviously written just to develop his character. This is a great achievement by Nicholson that is all there is to it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
