Beltmann

Double feature tonight of two well-made genre pieces: While Michael Clayton is the tighter entertainment, there was something rote about it; I think I preferred the flabbier yet more surprising and more human Gone Baby Gone.

While he definitely shot some of these in 1.33:1, there seems to be considerable disagreement about whether he actually intended them to always be shown in 1.33:1, or instead with masking. Various circumstances yielded different answers from Kubrick--he typically composed in-camera to simultaneously accomodate theatrical release, TV broadcast, and home video distribution--and so for several titles it's hard to pin down which version is the "definitive" version. In particular, I remember much unresolved controversy regarding the fullframe DVD release of Eyes Wide Shut.

Not too sure what to make of this one. The ads promised a straightforward comedy, but it's actually pitched somewhere between understated humor and impressionistic melancholy. The vision is certainly unique, and Molly Shannon's performance creates an interesting portrait of grief and alienation. Still, there's something a little too arch about the design--the relentless use of straight-on shots during conversations become unnerving--and something a little too vague about the characterization of Peggy, an office worker who loses her dog and becomes a PETA activist. Even though it's intrigui

I once saw a classified ad searching for a janitor willing to work the third-shit. Truth in advertising, that one.

Agreed. 1950s, not 1950's.

Four short films by George Sidney: Billy Rose's Casa Manana Revue / 1938 Love On Tap / 1939 Hollywood Hobbies / 1939 Willie and the Mouse / 1941

Good to hear! Can't wait.

Kids in our neighborhood pretty much just want religious tracts.

I thought it was terrific--it has many virtues, but what I loved most were the deadpan shifts in tone.

FYI: The National did a Daytrotter interview last summer. As always, a few songs are available for free. I noticed too late to grab their cover of "Pretty In Pink," which was capped at 5000 downloads. (If anybody happens to have it, I'd love to snag a copy.)

Your review compelled me to download this via eMusic. Listening now.

This would indeed be a great system--except there simply are not enough jobs like that for everybody. Essentially, your argument goes: I got mine, screw everybody else. There are plenty of hard-working people who "sold their soul" and are still denied benefits, coverage, or both, and deserve's got nuthin' to do with it. Through unfortunate circumstances, both of my parents are now at jobs without benefits of any kind, and I'm willing to bet both of them still work their asses off in a way you could never possibly imagine. But screw them, eh? I have great health care benefits. Great. I

A student once told me that she had committed a "mister meaner."

Thanks to you, I am listening to that album for the very first time right now. I don't know why I never got around to it... I just never did. I already dig Lupe, though.

Ralph Nader is not crazy.

The two major parties are mostly interested in maintaining power, and the nefarious part is that, with the media as their accomplice, they have designed and perpetuated a system that essentially ensures there can be no serious challenge to their power.

Because the topic happened to arise, and because Book 7 finally has the most hints of Dumbledore's orientation. To me, it doesn't seem odd that Rowling waited so long to publicly confirm it. The relevant question is, Why assume that Dumbledore must, by default, be heterosexual? Why are the heterosexual characters allowed to not be overtly identified as such, while a homosexual character must? Those listed relationships only confirm my contention that the series avoids sexuality as a serious subject. Those relationships might be about love, romance, devotion, or commitment, but none of t

I... must... resist...

Was he indeed closeted? Or was his orientation just never made explicit, one way or the other? (I don't recall Mad-eye Moody's sexuality ever being discussed, either--perhaps he was a closeted heterosexual?) It's reasonable to argue that a more explicit exploration would have better promoted the theme of tolerance, but must every aspect of a theme be "major" and explored fully? Why can't the texture of a theme have both major and minor aspects? I don't see why Dumbledore's orientation shouldn't be a very minor beam in the overall support of a major theme--especially in a children's series

Rowling clarified that Dumbledore's orientation relates directly to the issue of tolerance, which is, after all, one of the enduring themes of the series. (Consider how prejudice--towards Muggles, half-bloods, house-elves, centaurs, etc.--provides a major source of tension throughout all of the books.) Therefore, this adds another dimension to that theme. Making Dumbledore gay makes literary sense, and not just "for the sake of doing it."

Minor Von Trier, but it has some clever situational comedy.

Sort of like Linklater-lite, which means that it lacks the wisdom of Before Sunset but has a similar feel for dialogue, social interaction, and the pleasures of minor human moments.

Hey now... I would like it noted that I am an English teacher and yet have never pointed out a spelling or grammar error on a message board.