Rob Lowe (mp3) and cached here
Shania Twain (mp3) and cached here
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Recently watched movies
By pure coincidence, I happened to have these two movies in line for viewing:
I didn't know that the latter was almost a shot-for-shot remake of the former when I queued them. It was certainly a case of serendipity, a random alignment of the stars for maximum effect. With that in mind, the two movies are begging for a comparison with one another. Okay, here goes. In the French version, the Depardieu character could have been cast as a cardboard cutout and nothing would have been lost. At least, Liam Neeson in the same role fleshes out the role a bit more. The main roles are for the pair of female characters. Overall, the two movies are mostly on a par with one another in this casting, except Julianne Moore's performance stands out above all. She shows, once again, that she is absolutely fearless. At this point, the Canadian version looks like a worthy remake, even though some of the dialog in the Canadian version is copied verbatim from the French version and the delivery comes off as by rote and stilted at times. The Canadian version includes Hollywood's fetish for Apple computer hardware- nice product placement, I guess. I need something else to make a final comparison of the two movies. The divergence of the scripts will be the difference. The French version of the film is dark; the Canadian version is darker. That seems to give the edge to the Canadian version. However, just when its direction is clear, the script lets up. For whatever reason, the Canadian version spells everything out for us and concludes with a tidy Hollywood ending. Big mistake. I would have liked a more ambiguous ending with more loose ends and more overtones of Greek tradegy. Overall, that is a big weakness that shifts the scale back to the French version. It is a missed opportunity for the remake to improve on the original. As it stands, the French version wins out. YMMV.
p.s. Could it be that the script was altered at the last minute due to Neeson's personal real life tragedy?
- Nathalie, a 2003 French movie directed by Anne Fontaine.
- Chloe, a 2009 Canadian movie directed by Atom Egoyan
I didn't know that the latter was almost a shot-for-shot remake of the former when I queued them. It was certainly a case of serendipity, a random alignment of the stars for maximum effect. With that in mind, the two movies are begging for a comparison with one another. Okay, here goes. In the French version, the Depardieu character could have been cast as a cardboard cutout and nothing would have been lost. At least, Liam Neeson in the same role fleshes out the role a bit more. The main roles are for the pair of female characters. Overall, the two movies are mostly on a par with one another in this casting, except Julianne Moore's performance stands out above all. She shows, once again, that she is absolutely fearless. At this point, the Canadian version looks like a worthy remake, even though some of the dialog in the Canadian version is copied verbatim from the French version and the delivery comes off as by rote and stilted at times. The Canadian version includes Hollywood's fetish for Apple computer hardware- nice product placement, I guess. I need something else to make a final comparison of the two movies. The divergence of the scripts will be the difference. The French version of the film is dark; the Canadian version is darker. That seems to give the edge to the Canadian version. However, just when its direction is clear, the script lets up. For whatever reason, the Canadian version spells everything out for us and concludes with a tidy Hollywood ending. Big mistake. I would have liked a more ambiguous ending with more loose ends and more overtones of Greek tradegy. Overall, that is a big weakness that shifts the scale back to the French version. It is a missed opportunity for the remake to improve on the original. As it stands, the French version wins out. YMMV.
p.s. Could it be that the script was altered at the last minute due to Neeson's personal real life tragedy?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Propublica wins Pulitzer for Magnetar Reporting
Check out today's Fresh Air. A question came up which involved the term, insurable interest. The question wondered whether the entire meltdown could be attributed to a lack of an insurable interest by those using the Magnetar stategy. I think the guests' answer was that they placed more of the blame on those selling insurance (AIG), than those buying it. The insurers had "whiffed" (seriously underestimated risk) at setting the prices for those wanting to buy insurance for CDOs. If a proper price had been set, then Magnetar couldn't have been using that strategy, at least not profitably. Listen for the big finish of the broadcast, broadway style!
The interview audio is cached here:
1.
2.
3.
Here is my blog entry from last April which has a link back to This American Life.
Update: 2011-05-03
I have been meaning to write something about the documentary Inside Job. It is definitely recommended for anyone who wants to know more about the recent economic meltdown. The facts roll out pretty quickly, and it's a lot to digest in one sitting. It's probably best to take it in in smaller bites. That strategy also helps stop you from getting so mad that you start throwing things and/or breaking up the furniture. Anyway you slice it, the movie doesn't paint a pretty picture of how we got here to this current state of affairs. We were led by the "so called" free marketeers that demanded deregulation. That movement caught its stride in the mid 1990s with deregulation bills signed by Clinton that rolled back some of the major safeguards put in place after the 1930's depression. In this new era, governments all around the world were working hard to outdo one another, by easing banking rules and deregulating complex financial instruments. They were aided by the economists they had in their back pocket (Greenspan, Summers, et. al). At first, Greenspan tried to halt the irrational exuberance in the market. Eventually, he relented and decided to go along with the rising tide. With Greenspan on board, no one else of consequence was willing to call the bubble a bubble. Everyone now had been given rose colored glasses. They were working with one main fundamental assumption: the future trend is always positive- prices only go up. That assumption works; that is, until it doesn't. Oops! When the trend reversed, even in the slightest degree (as documented by the Propublica reporting), insolvency rapidly entered the picture. The banks were effectively wiped out over night. They went to Congress and to the Fed and asked for super massive bailouts. I have a hard time with this because these "free marketeers" had convinced me. I'm okay with having a free market, as long as everyone knows the rules are the same for everyone all of the time. Please, note it was the bankers that have turned against the rules of the free market. They did so after looking at their balance sheets. They changed their mind for simple self-preservation. They'd do anything, including reversing course, if it meant avoiding their demise. They needed the bailouts to survive. It's much like a 6 year old changing the rules in the middle of a boardgame, just because they are losing. We, as the adults in the room, felt bad for them, and were coerced into changing the rules for them. Little did we know that the frequent rule changes are a violation of the fudamental rules of the game, a perversion of how capitalism is supposed to work. The changes allowed the banks to socialize their losses. They just hope we will forget that they were all too happy to ride the wave at the other end of the spectrum; that is, they were definitely in favor of privatizing their profits when times were good. Now, it's just too bad, since we didn't hold their feet to the fire when we had the chance. I have to wonder, where was the public outcry that should've demanded that deregulation (as adopted) be enforced. Those rules demanded that everyone else must "stay out" and the game be played to its conclusion. Fairness demands that the rules be the same in both good times and in bad times. The system as it is now is a far cry from Adam Smith's invisible hand. It's more like a giant visible hand that jumps in at the last minute to prop up losers that should've been written off much earlier. Again, too bad for us. Good luck paying off the multi-trillion dollar debts!
An interesting part of the movie is the interviews with economists who led the charge for deregulation. Most have now retreated back to academia, and without exception, they have all landed on their feet. Still, these "great minds" don't come across as particularly intelligent. Two extremely dopey examples still stand out in mind, and even after several months have gone by since seeing the movie: Martin Feldstein (Harvard) and Glenn Hubbard (Columbia). As dumb as they come across, it's amazing that they can be hired anywhere, let alone those prestigious universities. To add insult to injury, wikipedia claims Feldstein is still a perennial candidate for the Nobel prize. Simply amazing! Another irony is that of those interviewed, Elliot Spitzer comes across as one of the most sane voices in the room.
This movie won the Oscar for best documentary of the year. In my opinion, it could have been the best movie of last year. It is the best of those that I have managed to see so far.
Note: There were a few textual changes in today's post. It took a few tries to get what I wanted to say in the proper syntax.
The interview audio is cached here:
1.
2.
3.
Here is my blog entry from last April which has a link back to This American Life.
Update: 2011-05-03
I have been meaning to write something about the documentary Inside Job. It is definitely recommended for anyone who wants to know more about the recent economic meltdown. The facts roll out pretty quickly, and it's a lot to digest in one sitting. It's probably best to take it in in smaller bites. That strategy also helps stop you from getting so mad that you start throwing things and/or breaking up the furniture. Anyway you slice it, the movie doesn't paint a pretty picture of how we got here to this current state of affairs. We were led by the "so called" free marketeers that demanded deregulation. That movement caught its stride in the mid 1990s with deregulation bills signed by Clinton that rolled back some of the major safeguards put in place after the 1930's depression. In this new era, governments all around the world were working hard to outdo one another, by easing banking rules and deregulating complex financial instruments. They were aided by the economists they had in their back pocket (Greenspan, Summers, et. al). At first, Greenspan tried to halt the irrational exuberance in the market. Eventually, he relented and decided to go along with the rising tide. With Greenspan on board, no one else of consequence was willing to call the bubble a bubble. Everyone now had been given rose colored glasses. They were working with one main fundamental assumption: the future trend is always positive- prices only go up. That assumption works; that is, until it doesn't. Oops! When the trend reversed, even in the slightest degree (as documented by the Propublica reporting), insolvency rapidly entered the picture. The banks were effectively wiped out over night. They went to Congress and to the Fed and asked for super massive bailouts. I have a hard time with this because these "free marketeers" had convinced me. I'm okay with having a free market, as long as everyone knows the rules are the same for everyone all of the time. Please, note it was the bankers that have turned against the rules of the free market. They did so after looking at their balance sheets. They changed their mind for simple self-preservation. They'd do anything, including reversing course, if it meant avoiding their demise. They needed the bailouts to survive. It's much like a 6 year old changing the rules in the middle of a boardgame, just because they are losing. We, as the adults in the room, felt bad for them, and were coerced into changing the rules for them. Little did we know that the frequent rule changes are a violation of the fudamental rules of the game, a perversion of how capitalism is supposed to work. The changes allowed the banks to socialize their losses. They just hope we will forget that they were all too happy to ride the wave at the other end of the spectrum; that is, they were definitely in favor of privatizing their profits when times were good. Now, it's just too bad, since we didn't hold their feet to the fire when we had the chance. I have to wonder, where was the public outcry that should've demanded that deregulation (as adopted) be enforced. Those rules demanded that everyone else must "stay out" and the game be played to its conclusion. Fairness demands that the rules be the same in both good times and in bad times. The system as it is now is a far cry from Adam Smith's invisible hand. It's more like a giant visible hand that jumps in at the last minute to prop up losers that should've been written off much earlier. Again, too bad for us. Good luck paying off the multi-trillion dollar debts!
An interesting part of the movie is the interviews with economists who led the charge for deregulation. Most have now retreated back to academia, and without exception, they have all landed on their feet. Still, these "great minds" don't come across as particularly intelligent. Two extremely dopey examples still stand out in mind, and even after several months have gone by since seeing the movie: Martin Feldstein (Harvard) and Glenn Hubbard (Columbia). As dumb as they come across, it's amazing that they can be hired anywhere, let alone those prestigious universities. To add insult to injury, wikipedia claims Feldstein is still a perennial candidate for the Nobel prize. Simply amazing! Another irony is that of those interviewed, Elliot Spitzer comes across as one of the most sane voices in the room.
This movie won the Oscar for best documentary of the year. In my opinion, it could have been the best movie of last year. It is the best of those that I have managed to see so far.
Note: There were a few textual changes in today's post. It took a few tries to get what I wanted to say in the proper syntax.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Video blogging is taking off
You don't need a film contract or have your band signed to a record label to be famous anymore. You can DIY (do it for yourself) and upload your video/audio to the internet. Right now, the barriers to entry for producing your own content are so low that all that is necessary is having a digital camera with video capability. Oh, and having some ideas to put out there helps a lot, too. The problem of how to stand out from the crowd remains tricky, though. Here are some I've stumbled upon, and they seem to have growing fan bases to support them:
Update: 2011-05-01
All Things Considered recently reported that in some cases Youtube shares the wealth with real cash to popular channels. Here is a link to the story, (mp3).
Update: 2011-05-16
Added Daily Grace's conversation with Lady Gaga.
Update: 2011-05-20
Link another DG video.
Update: 2011-05-23
Add Amy Walker accent video.
Update: 2011-06-05
Add note about meekakitty on Wait, Wait.
Update: 2011-06-10
Link another DG video.
- Daily Grace
Judas is just a girl-to-girl talk about boyfriends. And other things, ew.
Grace's toast to Bridesmaids
Another video parody, Rhianna's S&M - Meekakitty
Here is her music video with more than 1M views. It would've been much better if they'd looked for a better venue; it looks like an exit hallway or stairwell for the convention center. There's only so much you can do when you're confined to a four foot width restriction.
She could also do standup.
Her "Bacon Song" was used as the rolloff segue for Kevin Bacon's appearance on Wait, Wait - Amy Walker, 5.9M views
Update: 2011-05-01
All Things Considered recently reported that in some cases Youtube shares the wealth with real cash to popular channels. Here is a link to the story, (mp3).
Update: 2011-05-16
Added Daily Grace's conversation with Lady Gaga.
Update: 2011-05-20
Link another DG video.
Update: 2011-05-23
Add Amy Walker accent video.
Update: 2011-06-05
Add note about meekakitty on Wait, Wait.
Update: 2011-06-10
Link another DG video.
Recently watched movies
Aguirre: The Wrath of God.
This is a film from Herzog's early career. Here is the setting. The time is the 1500's; the place is the east slope of the Andes falling into the Amazon basin; the characters are the Spanish conquistadors; and the story is a fictionalized account of a trek into the wild Amazon jungle seeking to find riches at the lost city of gold, El Dorado. The story is modeled after Heart of Darkness. Coppola did his own version of Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse Now about seven years later. He included several homage scenes to Aguirre. There is one area of sharp contrast between the two movies, and that is their budgets. Apocalyse cost 100 times more to make than Aguirre. Both are definitely recommended!
Several of the filmed sequences in the movie seem very dangerous. Here are two examples. First, the opening sequence where they're hiking down a steep trail, and the vantage point of the camera is somehow backed off enough to show the 60 degree (or steeper?) slope. That is compounded by carrying cannons and carrying sedan chairs- just fraught with danger. Jessica and Jon recently hiked the Incan trail- maybe they can add their perspective. That first scene is immediately followed by the rafting scenes through raging rapids with rafts made from 5" trees lashed together. That looked like the actors were in real, not potential, danger. I have to say, that the costumes stayed remarkably clean throughout the filming. I wonder how that was accomplished. Staying so clean appeared a bit incongruous with how "out of their element" the invaders were, as if they were untouched by the wilderness.
Here are few screenshots:
.
The finale shows Aguirre (Kinski) standing alone. In my mind, this was an echo of the last man standing, like Hitler continuing to plan the continuing glories of the Third Reich even though Berlin has been destroyed around him. There is also an appropriate quote from Hugo's Les Miserables about following Ceasar, Charlamagne, and Napoleon for glory, but end up losing everything instead. I think it applies here as well- I may look for it later.
Here is Roger Ebert's review.
Trailer
This is a film from Herzog's early career. Here is the setting. The time is the 1500's; the place is the east slope of the Andes falling into the Amazon basin; the characters are the Spanish conquistadors; and the story is a fictionalized account of a trek into the wild Amazon jungle seeking to find riches at the lost city of gold, El Dorado. The story is modeled after Heart of Darkness. Coppola did his own version of Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse Now about seven years later. He included several homage scenes to Aguirre. There is one area of sharp contrast between the two movies, and that is their budgets. Apocalyse cost 100 times more to make than Aguirre. Both are definitely recommended!
Several of the filmed sequences in the movie seem very dangerous. Here are two examples. First, the opening sequence where they're hiking down a steep trail, and the vantage point of the camera is somehow backed off enough to show the 60 degree (or steeper?) slope. That is compounded by carrying cannons and carrying sedan chairs- just fraught with danger. Jessica and Jon recently hiked the Incan trail- maybe they can add their perspective. That first scene is immediately followed by the rafting scenes through raging rapids with rafts made from 5" trees lashed together. That looked like the actors were in real, not potential, danger. I have to say, that the costumes stayed remarkably clean throughout the filming. I wonder how that was accomplished. Staying so clean appeared a bit incongruous with how "out of their element" the invaders were, as if they were untouched by the wilderness.
Here are few screenshots:
.The finale shows Aguirre (Kinski) standing alone. In my mind, this was an echo of the last man standing, like Hitler continuing to plan the continuing glories of the Third Reich even though Berlin has been destroyed around him. There is also an appropriate quote from Hugo's Les Miserables about following Ceasar, Charlamagne, and Napoleon for glory, but end up losing everything instead. I think it applies here as well- I may look for it later.
Here is Roger Ebert's review.
Trailer
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)