Tuesday, December 20, 2005

i heard that it is below 0 here today. but factoring in windchill is for liars and losers.

my sister is in town from denver, so i have had hardly any time to post the excellent little clips i have been collecting from all across cyberland. no time and little sobriety.

the first time i noticed the new yorker’s use of the diaeresis – it was in the word cooperation, i believe – co√∂peration – i was like what’s with the umlaut? this article is great because it sort of rounds up the year in magazines and some of the less stellar articles that they ran but it also gives a shout out (via an esquire article that suggested some "highbrow" drinking games) to the new yorker’s pretentious little copy-editing habit. ps don’t ever get drunk with kim jong il, no matter how ronery he is.

the new york times argues that movie attendance is down because everything hollywood has been serving up is bland. english-cuisine khaki-pants new-nickleback-album zzzzz boring. safe. so while the good movies, are, well, still good, there haven’t been any retardedly bad movies. not the kind that tried soooo hard to be amazing and fell so flat that you end up renting it just to see how bad it is precisely (see: gigli, glitter, alexander, showgirls). and we all suffer when there isn’t anything brazenly sucking. as the article states,

Disasters and masterpieces, after all, often arise from the same impulses: extravagant ambition, irrational risk, pure chutzpah, a synergistic blend of vanity, vision and self-delusion. The tiniest miscalculation on the part of the artist - or of the audience - can mean the difference between adulation and derision. So in the realm of creative achievement, the worst is not just the opposite of the best, but also its neighbor. This year has produced plenty of candidates for a Bottom 10 (or 30 or 100) list, but I fear that none of the bad movies are truly worthy of being called the worst. And this may be why so few are worthy of being considered for the best.

nice theory. like, i really liked a lot of the movies i saw this year, but none that i decided have made my place in the world an easier place to be. except for the aristocrats, of course, but that’s more of a pathology than an opinion.

the washington post has an excellent feature on the ringer, the new farrelly brothers movie in which johnny knoxville pretends to be retarded so he can fix the special olympics. i had seen the preview what feels like months and months ago and forgot about it, but the kennedys, mentally retarded people and their families, and hollywood have been perfecting it: sending a realistic and positive message about retarded people while also ensuring that it’s a funny farrelly brothers movie. i’m actually a lot more interested in seeing it now that i know that it’s not just a bunch of cheap jokes about the mentally challenged. speaking of which, jk and i were reminiscing about the dead milkmen recently and he promised to find his copy of “takin retards to the zoo” for me (“head on collision, retards beware!”). if anyone has a live copy of “bitchin camaro/the best thanksgiving ever” please let me know. it is required for the completion of my itunes recreation of a mix tape i made in 1992.

upsetting and fucked up: how kids with webcams (and parents who clearly are not involved with their children's lives) pimp themselves out for all the pedophile freaks that hang out online. the new york times did a huge investigative piece and helped one of the kids approach law enforcement so they could collapse part of the kiddie porn ring. i love when journalism is useful and good. i wanted to be a journalist. other things happened. i prefer having a little blog, to tell you the truth. i don't ever have to PROVE anything, and all of my sources are anonymous, just like judes miller.

No comments: