Tonight’s silent feature at the Paramount was the hilarious Girl Shy, starring bespectacled schmoe Harold Lloyd.

Harold plays a naive small-town tailor who writes a book about the ladies and how to woo them; naturally, his ideas are, hurm, fanciful.

Well, boy meets girl, boy loses girl, and there’s an epic car (well, um, car, trolley, horse, foot, and motorcycle) chase. In supporting roles are downtown Los Angeles, 1924; Crackerjack packaging, same time frame; and an Acme Dog Biscuits box, circa 1924.

One of the things I really enjoy about silents on a big screen is the peripheral information. The way the sets are decorated. The activities engaged in by the people in the background of outdoor shots. Takes shot from different angles at the same interestion edited together to move the narrative of the story through a mixed-up, jumbled cityscape you only notice if you’re looking at the edges of the frame.

In silents from up until the period of this release, as well, the great smoothing-over has yet to take place. Highly attractive persons of both sexes filling starring roles have wildy untamed teeth, enormous noses, weak chins, peculiar body shapes, and ill-fitting clothes. Granted, in comedies there is more leeway for this sort of thing. But even serious, big-money pics from before ’24 or so have this quality, which I treasure.

These entertainments aren’t only the foundations of modern cinema; they aren’t only artifacts of anthropological interest; they aren’t only nostalgic experiences which create shared experiences across time and genreations. They are, of course, all of these; but for me it’s not necessarily these attractions that really make me love the silents.

It’s the bad teeth, the paunchy, weak-chinned star, and the mooks in the back of the shot smoking and talking about how they’d like to, uh, spend time with the leading lady. These films, by virtue of the less powerful (than today) position of the craft in American society at the time they were made, offer us a vision of what movies can look like when not made under conditions of dictatorial, imperial control of the frame.

Interestingly enough, there’s something about these films that reminds me of Hong Kong action flicks and Bollywood musicals. Uh, sorry, Western Europe: even though I know you love the films as much as I do, I’m not familiar with post-silents from your shores that summon up the same bumptious energy. Does Terry Gilliam count?

Any time a high-falutin film critic identifies a film as distanced or mannered, and then in support of the claim, complains concerning the lack of attention to realism within the film, I’M SOLD.

In this week’s New Yorker, David Denby’s review (warning: not a permalink) of nearly released Tom Hanks flick Road to Perdition manages to not only do this but to condemn the filmmaker’s aesthetic, citing Erwin Panofsky’s dictum “shoot unstylized reality” (more fairly excerpted in Denby’s piece) in support of this goal.

After I read it, I realized that he opens the review with a reference to the greatest of the Coen brothers flicks, Miller’s Crossing, which, it would appear, treads similar terrain. Of course, stylization and lack of human sympathy are what they get docked for too. As at least one of my readers knows, that’s why I love ’em.

One more thing to note: this weekend I was looking for more comics to review in a big, mostly superhero-oriented comics store. They have lots of unbought titles that date as far back as 1998 in genres that interest me: um, if comics had “shoe-gazing emo” or “historical documentary speculation” or “mannerist genre homage” racks, that’s where I’d look most of the time.

As it was, I wasn’t sure my editor would print (er, post) reviews of five-year old dog-eared books by publishers that went out of business two years ago, so I didn’t pick any up.

I did look at, and consider, a beautiful, moody graphic novel, of 30’s gangsters in Chicago by nobody I’d ever heard of. Guess what? The book was sold directly as the basis of this film. Now I gotta look it up. Here’s a review of it when originally published.

At Apple.
I’ve read no advance on the flick, except remarks from Braga and Berman concerning story development and casting made in January; it appears that Data’s brother Lore is back, possibly in a supporting role, and that the Nosferatu people menace the Federation. Something about the bad guys makes me wonder if they tie in to the Temporal Cold War plot thread on Enterprise.

Data is shown flinging himself into the void at a run, as a Suliban character did on the new show, as well.

This is to be the end of that hearty franchise, TNG, I guess.

http://cgi.liveauctions.ebay.com/aw-cgi/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=1834314676

Yes, that chair. Set to go for over $100k.

Hloy cow, look at the whole collection! The Geek King needs new shoes!

Spock’s Ears! Captain Picard’s first season uniform!

My god, this collection shouldn’t be sold off in bits and pieces, it belongs in an academic library! Look at the production notes!

Anybody else noticed the astonishing material on Nova and Frontline this past year? Last night’s Frontline was about the siege in Bethlehem, which ended, um, on May 22!

The most compelling show to date in this season of Nova, was, naturally, “Why The Towers Fell“, which was a truly fascinating look at the physics of the 9/11 disaster. The conclusions presented on the show were the early conclusions I recall reading about in February and earlier, but the oomph of visual info made it that much more compelling.

Frontline’s season, however, has been nothing short of fantastic in both timeliness and depth – in particular, the Israeli-based producers the show has been able to hook up with have been providing absolutely remarkable coerage from both sides of the unfolding disaster there – as noted earlier in this post, the production turnarounds for this sort of news documentary has been really amazing.

Highlights for this season have included “Inside the Terror Network“, “Battle for the Holy Land“, and “Terror and Tehran“. I also recall a show which focused on the Kurds and Iraq in very early spring, but don’t know if that was on Frontline.

Additional topics covered include American meat production (the news is, well, bad: the industry is so centralized that outbreaks of regrettable food are pretty much unavaoidable), “American Porn” (hey! How’d I miss that?), and “Dot Con“.

As you have undoubtely figured out, these shows all feature sweet, sweet websites backing them up. The 2001 season also features the same sort of timeliness and topicality.

Anyway, I’m glad it’s on.

Viv and I, along with all the rest of the country, dropped into our friendly neighborhood multiplex this weekend to see “Spider-Man”.

My viewing experience bears out the reviews I’d noted; Toby Maguire is perfectly cast, the story was deftly and wittily handled, Dafoe’s usually better than this, the digital FX were somehow not as good as they should have been (Dude! Ida no how to fix ’em! They just were, well, to computery or something!).

The film suceeds in actually translating the archetypal, finely balanced quality of Silver Age Marvel books in such a way that the story is not resolved at the expense of a major ongoing plot point, which has been a modus operandi of pretty much all superhero comics movies to date.

An additional suprise of the film was the effect of director Sam Raimi’s insistence on using the genuine New York metropolitan area as his setting. In essence, New Yoork, as it does in many great films set in the city, becomes a major supporting character.

However, the emotional force that this character delivers doesn’t come from the filme itself, but from the events of 9/11. All through the flm I felt like I was seeing a dead relative, alive again. Now, I know NYC didn’t die on 9/11, but of course everyone that watched the events of that day has been affected by it one way or another.

The filmakers decided to reshoot the ending, which involved the WTC in a crucial manner, and this delayed release of the film. Thus, the film has no shot in which the towers appear, and no reference to the fall of the towers, either, which is odd, if understandable.

Scenes of parts of a building in the edge of Times Square exploding and falling into the street also had a very different resonance than they would have when the scene was written and shot. There, additionally, was a gratuitous shot of a crowd on a bridge pelting the baddie Green Goblin with debris during which a random person declares “You attack one of us and you attack us all”, which as understandable an addition as it is, felt clumsy and unneeded. It certainly did NOT provoke the fist-pumping cries of “Yeah!” it was intended to. I imagine it tests differently the closer you are to NYC.

Anyway, seeing the city up there on the big screen made me realize how much I’m looking forward to seeing it agin the next time I fly into JFK. The approach uses the coolest flightpath in the world, and circumnavigates Manhattan from stem to stern and back again before skimming the roofs of Governor’s Island.

So I enjoyed the movie. Sam Raimi has definitely made better flicks, but at the same time, it’s clear that this film is really among the better efforts in the genre. I have no idea how he’d go about it, but I’d love to see the same tense, giggly “I can’t believe that just happened” quality the Evil Dead movies have in a followup Spidey flick.

New York Times political reporter A. O. Scott calls in from the polling station:

“Like weary Brezhnev-era Muscovites, the American moviegoing public will line up out of habit and compulsion, ruefully hoping that this episode will at least be a little better than the last one, and perhaps inwardly suspecting that the whole elephantine system is rotten.”

Don’t hold back, A. O.! Come ON, already, tell us the TRUTH! Or do you have something to hide?

It’s pretty much a curb-stompin. Blood, teeth, horrified onlookers. I laughed out loud:

‘Star Wars: Episode II’: Kicking Up Cosmic Dust (Yeah, yeah, it’s at the Times. Oh shuddup. You’re already registered or else you don’t have a computer in which case go buy the damn rag already and SAY how are you reading this then huh smart guy)

Ask me what a curb-stomping is. Go on. I dare ya. No, I take it back. Go ask ya muddah.

Ouch! He uses the line, oh my god, he USES THE LINE:

“But where are the clones? Send in the clones!”

I’m sorry, you’re not old enough to read this review. Your mother and I have decided it’s for the best. You can look it up on half-legible microfilm in a couple decades, about the time the last three Star Wars movies come out.

Some of you may know that I’ve been writing occasional comics reviews for Cinescape. I’ve also had the good fortune to be asked to write about the new Star Trek series for them from time to time. I reviewed the inaugural episode but they took a pass, so I imagine it will wind up here sooner or later. I have a super short one-pager in the current print edition, and also did a speculative piece about possible plot directions for the show.

The double-header that aired Wednesday night was striking because of the naked inspiration the stories took from current events. The story development phase for these episodes likely took place in December, running, possibly, into January.

The name of the pivotal planet in the first episode that aired was “Mazar”, undoubtely drawn from the site of several fierce battles during the war, and of course the site of John Walker Lindh’s capture; these events occurred in late November and may well have been fresh in the minds of the writers for the show. The plot? A distinguished Vulcan ambassador has been expelled from Mazar for conduct unbecoming, etc., and Enterprise must take her to a rendezvous point. But what’s this? Mazarians in fast ships chase Enterprise, battling her for the ambassador. Will our heroes make it? Why are the Mazarites upset? Well, you’ll just have to watch the episode, but rest assured, there are plot echoes of current events throughout.

The second episode finds our doughty crew helping a low-rent Lawrence of Arabia, a strapping charmer who invites the Cap’n and Tripp down to his desert camp for a lashing game of white-boy lacrosse. Then the planetary gummint hails T’Pol in orbit and beams the big clue in: our boy down there is a terrorist.

The Cap’n and Tripp get the word, and they make a run for it over 30 klicks of burning sand, fleeing a nighttime artillery bombardment depicted with great care by the FX team. Do they make it? Well, you know I don’t kiss and tell.

This episode was as close as I’ve ever seen Trek come to reflecting on current events in real time. It’s important to note that the issue of the dashing rogue’s terrorism is left deliberately vague – he’s got weapons, he’s leading a war against a superior military force, he claims oppression, and they say he takes out civilians. We never get much of either side, in fact.

Which is really as it should be, since Trek is about ideas and character. Braga and Berman era Trek has actually repeatedly returned to the theme of terror and revolution over and over, almost always unsuccessfully. The Bajorans resisting Cardassian occupation. The Maquis resisting Federation treaties ceding their planets to the Klingons. The problems with these depictions of the issue is uniformly their failure to avoid preaching and at the same time their inability to pick a side. It’s as though the ambitions of the writers and producers to create comitted, socially responsible fiction about the topic are always defeated by the requirements of the medium of commercial TV.

Of course, it could just be the topic. I don’t think you can discuss it and make everyone happy.

This episode did create a sympathetic character who was identified as a terrorist, and in light of recent events in the middle east, I am surprised they aired it. However, becasue the majority of the episode was associated with issues of character and science-fiction problem solving, the episode avoided the tiresome quality that the other episodes revolving about the theme have often had.

Naturally, your mileage may vary. I rather imagine that it probably nettled more people than it did not.

Oh ho! on the official Trek boards, we find this thread: “More than a little disturbed by ‘Desert Crossing'”, in which thread starter “mike01” (no relation, I assume) sez:

It all stank of a “hidden” pro-Palestinian, and more disturbingly, pro-terrorist (his cause is worth fighting for? he attacks civilian tartgets and Archer has no problem with this?) message.

I am more than a little disturbed. I don’t know what to think. It’s almost like a Palestinian terrorist made his way into the plot room at Enterprise headquarters and snuck in a propaganda script and no one noticed.

(God, the board UI SUCKS. You can’t just flip through the thread in chronological order.)

By now, the entire world is aware that Comedy Central’s Daily Show provided the only decent coverage of the 2000 election debacle. They called the outcome of the race a full 9 months before the election. They were the only media outfit which bothered to give any air time at all to the Greens. They nailed Arizona Senator John McCain with questions he couldn’t answer.

In short, they displayed the appropriate attitude of skeptical irreverence that a democracy requires from its’ journalists. What does it indicate for the health of an empire when it’s only the jester that questions the king?

They went on to a kick-ass ride right up until September 11th, went off the air, and spent a few disoriented weeks covering the war, the contraction of civil liberties, and the like. This period was not the strongest in the show’s history – self-consciously acting as the only place you could see Ralph Nader on TV, devoting twenty minutes of the show to foreign policy analysis by beltway types, and so forth. Then ABC announced they were giving Koppel the boot, which pretty much guaranteed Mr. Stewart a shot at the big time on late night network TV, and you could tell that there was a lot of uncertainty on the show.

Once ABC confirmed that they were not gonna turn Koppel out on his ass, the show began to regain some focus, and is beginning to exhibit the combination of sharp-tongued wit and intellectual honesty (cleverly disguised as outright lies) which made it the only decent news source in the entire blighted wasteland of contemporary American media for the last 9 months of 2000.

During the campaign coverage and the first half of 2001, the Steven-Stephen combination gave the show a kind of manic power that is better than gold in TV comedy. Stephen Colbert’s collected and urbane satire and Steven Carells’ eye-bulging, flop-sweating freaky egocentric misanthrope was anchored by Stewart’s genius of delivery and hosting interaction (I don’t think I can call it interviewing, exactly) and the results were killer.

However, ever since the premiere of the FedEx campaign that featured Carell (which I’ve not seen on air lately), Carell’s presence on the show has been quite diminished. Naturally, reasons for screen time are not given in the show; I made a half-hearted effort find an obsessed fansite that would provide stalker-worthy inside poop, but came up dry. I did find the excellent Daily Show site at Comedy Central, and additionally, the video-heavy fansite “the Daily Show Experience”, both linked below.

So, like, where the Hell is Steve Carell? Everyone, together this time: Where the Hell is Steve Carell? Please take the graphic above and disseminate it widely.

A footnote: the square graphic of a cell-phone’s text-message screen was on the Comedy Central site in the context of an ad for a major wireless provider. Someone should clue them in: we’ve had two major, uh, train-wrecks in the last seven days or so.

In poking about for this entry I found these sites of note:

the Daily Show Experience, which has tons of classic clips, including the original John McCain interview, but which, sadly, has not been updated a whole bunch of late.

Comedy Central’s official site