I have been receiving the Toronto Star in my home on a free eight-week trial, and while I don't have time to read much beyond the sports and entertainment news, and a bit of politics, I have learned a few interesting things. For instance, one fairly new trend amongst women is to wear their pants tucked into their boots. I hadn't noticed this on my own, so I started looking and, sure enough, saw more than a few occurrences of this phenomena. Now, participating in this trend requires two things: high boots and slim pants. Since both of these are worn to best effect by - if not limited to - tall slender women, the result of this trend is to take their long slim legs and make them seem longer and slimmer, while reducing the distance between their exposed footwear and their midsection. This makes it a trend of the already attractive, and sure enough, the women I observed were, as a whole, more physically attractive than the norm.
As if to put an exclamation mark on the above, before writing this I left my office and headed to the street below to buy a drink. While walking, I noticed a girl with a bottom that could only have been blessed by the hand of God himself. Not surprisingly, her pants were tucked into her mid-calf high boots. It proves nothing, and I guess means nothing, other than giving me another part of the female figure to appreciate. Damned fine trend, that.
* * * * *
I have been reading a very dangerous book this week. It's called "Make Your Own Damn Movie!", and it's written by a filmmaker named Lloyd Kaufman, whose best known work is probably The Toxic Avenger (it's the only one I had ever heard of before). What makes the book so dangerous is that it is hysterical. Kaufman has made a ton of low budget movies, and clearly his greatest asset in surviving this lifestyle choice has been his sense of humour. Kaufman's profane rants have led me to laugh out loud while on the subway, hence the danger, since anyone standing alone on the subway and laughing is a person to keep a safe distance away from. I have tried to hold the laughter in, but this only makes things worse. I have noticed people looking at me on two occasions, but what can I do? The guy is hilarious.
As an aside, it is also a very useful book for the budding filmmaker, with common sense tips from the real world of movies, as well as lots of stories to warn you of the many things that can go wrong. Mostly, it's an affirmation of a man's love of movies, and the lengths to which he has gone to make his way in the art and business of cinema. It's a stirring read that will inspire and thrill you.
Besides, where else can you learn how to shoot a scene where a guy gets stabbed to death in the ass by a live chicken? These are the kind of things they just don't teach enough of in film school.
* * * * *
I think I've made it clear that I don't have any interest in children just because they're children. A kid has to be interesting as a person, not as an example of breeding. Today, one of the lawyers had her daughter in for a tour, and this little girl was great. Not even two years old, she's cute as a button and seems like a really intelligent aware child. So while I'm watching her roll around on the floor with her mom, I hear a secretary near me say, in a snotty voice, "Doesn't she have a baby-sitter?" This surprised me coming from a woman, but then I had a revelation: people who have no chance of ever having sex hate children, since kids are the one visible concrete result of sex. Scratch a grossly obese 50ish spinster, and underneath you'll find Miss Hannigan from Annie. Well, either that or a soft creamy chocolate-filled centre.
* * * * *
I haven't paid much attention to his doings the last few years, but I wonder why no one seems to have suggested yet that Jean Charest would make a good replacement for Paul Martin. A sitting Liberal premier, he is well-liked nationally, has extensive federal experience and, notwithstanding his past as a Tory cabinet minister and leader, is more ideologically akin to the Liberals than he is to the Stephen Harper Conservatives. In fact, to even use any word stemming from "ideology" in connection with the Liberals is a joke, so that shouldn't be a problem. Charest may be concerned about seeming opportunist, he may view his work in Quebec as unfinished, he may harbour intentions of joining up with Harper - who can say? All I know is that I would happily vote for him as PM. Had he replaced Mulroney and not Kim Campbell in 1993, I believe the last dozen years in our nation's history would be very different, and we would never have seen a Harper victory, and maybe not even a Martin one. Time to get back on track.
* * * * *
Continuing in my efforts to catch up on classic movies, I last night watched Hitchcock's The 39 Steps, which was just wonderful. The main thing I have noticed with these old movies is how quickly they jump into the story, with character information and any necessary back story coming at you on the fly. As a result, the films are shorter (this one was under 90 minutes) but simply packed with plot. In no way did I feel slighted as a viewer, nor did I root for the hero any less because I wasn't told he was abandoned as a child and is lactose intolerant. In fact, the lack of back story is played for fun in a scene where the hero, innocently accused of murder, spins a tale of his faux criminal past for the woman to whom he is handcuffed while on the run. This humourous tale begins her turn of mind away from believing him to be a murderer to wondering exactly who he is, culminating shortly with her resolving that he is telling her the truth about the conspiracy into which he has fallen. It's an excellent film with all sorts of twists, and never for one moment does interest lag. Keeping in mind that the recent King Kong remake is almost twice as long as the orginal with no new story to speak of, maybe filmmakers just did a better job telling stories before the toys of technology overwhelmed them with choices galore. All I know is that these recent viewings have me more excited about catching up on cinema history than on any new release Hollywood may have in the offing. Well, at least until the next Harold and Kumar movie comes out.
As if to put an exclamation mark on the above, before writing this I left my office and headed to the street below to buy a drink. While walking, I noticed a girl with a bottom that could only have been blessed by the hand of God himself. Not surprisingly, her pants were tucked into her mid-calf high boots. It proves nothing, and I guess means nothing, other than giving me another part of the female figure to appreciate. Damned fine trend, that.
* * * * *
I have been reading a very dangerous book this week. It's called "Make Your Own Damn Movie!", and it's written by a filmmaker named Lloyd Kaufman, whose best known work is probably The Toxic Avenger (it's the only one I had ever heard of before). What makes the book so dangerous is that it is hysterical. Kaufman has made a ton of low budget movies, and clearly his greatest asset in surviving this lifestyle choice has been his sense of humour. Kaufman's profane rants have led me to laugh out loud while on the subway, hence the danger, since anyone standing alone on the subway and laughing is a person to keep a safe distance away from. I have tried to hold the laughter in, but this only makes things worse. I have noticed people looking at me on two occasions, but what can I do? The guy is hilarious.
As an aside, it is also a very useful book for the budding filmmaker, with common sense tips from the real world of movies, as well as lots of stories to warn you of the many things that can go wrong. Mostly, it's an affirmation of a man's love of movies, and the lengths to which he has gone to make his way in the art and business of cinema. It's a stirring read that will inspire and thrill you.
Besides, where else can you learn how to shoot a scene where a guy gets stabbed to death in the ass by a live chicken? These are the kind of things they just don't teach enough of in film school.
* * * * *
I think I've made it clear that I don't have any interest in children just because they're children. A kid has to be interesting as a person, not as an example of breeding. Today, one of the lawyers had her daughter in for a tour, and this little girl was great. Not even two years old, she's cute as a button and seems like a really intelligent aware child. So while I'm watching her roll around on the floor with her mom, I hear a secretary near me say, in a snotty voice, "Doesn't she have a baby-sitter?" This surprised me coming from a woman, but then I had a revelation: people who have no chance of ever having sex hate children, since kids are the one visible concrete result of sex. Scratch a grossly obese 50ish spinster, and underneath you'll find Miss Hannigan from Annie. Well, either that or a soft creamy chocolate-filled centre.
* * * * *
I haven't paid much attention to his doings the last few years, but I wonder why no one seems to have suggested yet that Jean Charest would make a good replacement for Paul Martin. A sitting Liberal premier, he is well-liked nationally, has extensive federal experience and, notwithstanding his past as a Tory cabinet minister and leader, is more ideologically akin to the Liberals than he is to the Stephen Harper Conservatives. In fact, to even use any word stemming from "ideology" in connection with the Liberals is a joke, so that shouldn't be a problem. Charest may be concerned about seeming opportunist, he may view his work in Quebec as unfinished, he may harbour intentions of joining up with Harper - who can say? All I know is that I would happily vote for him as PM. Had he replaced Mulroney and not Kim Campbell in 1993, I believe the last dozen years in our nation's history would be very different, and we would never have seen a Harper victory, and maybe not even a Martin one. Time to get back on track.
* * * * *
Continuing in my efforts to catch up on classic movies, I last night watched Hitchcock's The 39 Steps, which was just wonderful. The main thing I have noticed with these old movies is how quickly they jump into the story, with character information and any necessary back story coming at you on the fly. As a result, the films are shorter (this one was under 90 minutes) but simply packed with plot. In no way did I feel slighted as a viewer, nor did I root for the hero any less because I wasn't told he was abandoned as a child and is lactose intolerant. In fact, the lack of back story is played for fun in a scene where the hero, innocently accused of murder, spins a tale of his faux criminal past for the woman to whom he is handcuffed while on the run. This humourous tale begins her turn of mind away from believing him to be a murderer to wondering exactly who he is, culminating shortly with her resolving that he is telling her the truth about the conspiracy into which he has fallen. It's an excellent film with all sorts of twists, and never for one moment does interest lag. Keeping in mind that the recent King Kong remake is almost twice as long as the orginal with no new story to speak of, maybe filmmakers just did a better job telling stories before the toys of technology overwhelmed them with choices galore. All I know is that these recent viewings have me more excited about catching up on cinema history than on any new release Hollywood may have in the offing. Well, at least until the next Harold and Kumar movie comes out.
posted by George @ 12:18 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home