Could this be the beginning of the end for Seth MacFarlane?
For some reason, it makes me think of the members of Congress who get voted out of office after a failed run for president. Much of what members of Congress do is non-ideological, so when they run for president, it comes as a surprise to some of their constituents what these guys actually believe.
With Seth MacFarlane, it turns out that he actually IS Pete Griffin. All this time we thought we were laughing at Peter; MacFarlane intended that we laugh with him. It would be like discovering that All in the Family was produced by Archie Bunker-like conservatives, or the realization that Jerry Lewis really was Buddy Love.
And how do you develop a radio voice? I've done internet searches for it, but haven't found anything. Surely that's not natural.
Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Seth MacFarlane
Seth MacFarlane was on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. He explained that there was a certain type in New England---men who had no filter at all and would say anything that entered their minds no matter how inappropriate.
It make sense for Peter Griffin to act that way, but why was MacFarlane himself carrying on like that at the Oscars? Is that all he can do now?
Well, I won't go into it any further. I hardly watched any of it. Haven't seen any of the movies although there were some I was hoping would lose, including the one that won for Best Picture. I doubt pro-CIA, pro-torture movies would have done as well during the Bush years. Obama has made it all seem respectable.
It make sense for Peter Griffin to act that way, but why was MacFarlane himself carrying on like that at the Oscars? Is that all he can do now?
Well, I won't go into it any further. I hardly watched any of it. Haven't seen any of the movies although there were some I was hoping would lose, including the one that won for Best Picture. I doubt pro-CIA, pro-torture movies would have done as well during the Bush years. Obama has made it all seem respectable.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Rifftrax, Mystery Science Theater 3000 fans
I've long been an admirer of Mystery Science Theater 3000. But I'm not sure I still want to admit that after looking at a Rifftrax message board.
It's the only thread I read on the message board. Maybe the others were all highly intellectual.
But here fans responded to a link someone posted to an interview with the late Ray Dennis Steckler who directed a number of low budget movies, mostly horror but some comedies as well. He was influenced by silent movies and he seemed to have been inspired by Soviet Experimental cinema.
From the interview:
Naturally, the MST3k fans got all worked up about it:
But the other MST3k fan responded:
Another said,
"SUCK IT, STECKLER," another cleverly retorted.
Some interview I saw
Mike Nelson and one of the other guys from that show had pretty much the same attitude in an interview I saw on You Tube. They had appeared on a local talk show. They were arguing with an admirer of science fiction film who took offense at their work. Nelson and the other guy---I don't remember who it was---defense of the show boiled down to "Oh, come on!"
It's pointless to argue with comedians. If they can't make an argument, they make a joke. If there's a glaring hole in their argument, they make a joke. You make an argument, they make a joke. And they're used to being on stage so they talk loud.
I'll never be a fan of anything again.
It's the only thread I read on the message board. Maybe the others were all highly intellectual.
But here fans responded to a link someone posted to an interview with the late Ray Dennis Steckler who directed a number of low budget movies, mostly horror but some comedies as well. He was influenced by silent movies and he seemed to have been inspired by Soviet Experimental cinema.
From the interview:
...Speaking of cheesy science fiction shows, what do you think about your films being shown on “Mystery Science Theater 3000”?
I think it’s just disgusting. I think the people that wrote that should be ashamed of some of the things they said. If they want to poke fun at my films, that’s fine. We went out and made a movie and they have a right to say what they think about it, but some of things they said in that show were just disgusting. I don’t even like to talk about it because it upsets me so much. They never had the rights from me to show the pictures. The guys that do that show just have no respect for what a filmmaker goes through with very little money. You give up a lot to make a movie like “Strange Creatures”, time and money. I did not need the kind of racist, sexist and even anti-Semitic remarks those guys made. I just think they were wrong to do it. I hope they made a lot of money off that and then spent it unwisely. The show is off the air now so it really doesn’t matter. Let me ask you something, have you ever heard me knock anyone before?
No, I can honestly say in anything I have read or seen about you, you have never said an unkind word about anyone. I can also add that I know first hand from talking with other filmmakers that you are not alone in your sentiments towards that show.http://www.crazedfanboy.com/spotlight/raysteckler.html
Naturally, the MST3k fans got all worked up about it:
And pray tell what ones were those? I don't recall them every being racist, sexist, or anti-semetic [sic] . If they did they were mocking a racist character and speaking as him. But for the life of me I don't remember any of those type jokes directed at RDS or his turd of a film. I think he is another movie guy with his panties in a bunch because he thinks his work is gold and having someone ridicule it for the massive turd it is is sacrilegious.Another responded:
Racist : "The other Gumble Brother"I did notice on a "Film Crew" commentary that they had a tendency, when a black character appeared on screen, to basically shout out the name of another black person. When a black stripper appeared in one movie, one of them said it was Condoleezza Rice. She didn't resemble Rice in any way other than being black. The sexist comment about the actress being "masculine" referred to Steckler's then wife, and jokes about Nazis are always a bit of a problem.
Sexist: "She's the most masculine man I've ever seen."
Anti-Semitic: The "Sieg Heil"ing while the dancers were doing their routine.
But the other MST3k fan responded:
That's it? Ok saying that some guy looks like someone else's brother (who happens to be a different race) is racist? Making fun of a woman who looks manish and making a joke about it is sexist? Making a joke that the dance routine looks like the sig hiel [sic] is anti-semetic [sic]? Not really it is making a reference to people who were, but not saying anything nasty about jews. [sic]http://forum.rifftrax.com/index.php?topic=11813.0
Now if Mike/Kev/Bill said in an interview or seriously said stuff like "Black people are lazy good for nothings." or "Women should only be in a kitchen and serve their man." or "Jews are a major cause of the world's problems." Yeah THEN I would agree that they are racist/antisemetic [sic] /sexist. But making jokes like they did are not that bad. They are mocking the individual person or a negative culture.
Another said,
Like the then head of the BBC said at the time when asked about Monty Python's Flying Circus: "There are some people who should be offended and often." or words to that effect.I doubt he saw the irony in his being offended himself that someone criticized a TV show he watched.
"SUCK IT, STECKLER," another cleverly retorted.
Some interview I saw
Mike Nelson and one of the other guys from that show had pretty much the same attitude in an interview I saw on You Tube. They had appeared on a local talk show. They were arguing with an admirer of science fiction film who took offense at their work. Nelson and the other guy---I don't remember who it was---defense of the show boiled down to "Oh, come on!"
It's pointless to argue with comedians. If they can't make an argument, they make a joke. If there's a glaring hole in their argument, they make a joke. You make an argument, they make a joke. And they're used to being on stage so they talk loud.
I'll never be a fan of anything again.
Saturday, February 16, 2013
Hallmark Hall of Fame
What's the difference between high brow and low brow cinema? And where does the middle brow come in? Doesn't the middle brow deserve more respect?
I don't know how many of these things I've actually seen, but there was the Hallmark Hall of Fame, expensive-looking, tasteful made-for-TV movies.
In the New York Times, critic Caryn James wrote about one of them: "Nothing seems real in What the Deaf Man Heard. Instead, its soothing, storybook quality has Hallmark written all over it."
That's pretty much the impression I have of this Hallmark stuff. I don't know if the impression's accurate or not. If anyone disagrees I don't know if I could argue the point. I haven't watched any in years, but I've listened to them while they were on TV in the next room. I'd sit there working at the computer, listening to the actors speak in phony Southern accents. And I kept thinking that, if you could master that, copy the form, you could get away with any content you wanted.
Which I think is what happened with the movie Hound Dog with Dakota Fanning. It was a controversial coming-of-age movie about a twelve-year-old girl who lives a rather grim life in the South and has an exaggerated admiration for Elvis Presley. The poor girl is raped by a guy who says he'll give her Elvis tickets.
It's hard for me to judge since I actually watched Hound Dog and for the most part only listened to the Hallmark Hall of Fame movies, but I thought Hound Dog had the same feel to it as the Hallmark movies.
Master the form--the look and feel of a Hallmark Hall of Fame drama--and you can do anything you want as far as the content goes. Movies about abortion providers, medical marijuana, maybe a sympathetic portrayal of drug dealers.
I don't know how many of these things I've actually seen, but there was the Hallmark Hall of Fame, expensive-looking, tasteful made-for-TV movies.
In the New York Times, critic Caryn James wrote about one of them: "Nothing seems real in What the Deaf Man Heard. Instead, its soothing, storybook quality has Hallmark written all over it."
That's pretty much the impression I have of this Hallmark stuff. I don't know if the impression's accurate or not. If anyone disagrees I don't know if I could argue the point. I haven't watched any in years, but I've listened to them while they were on TV in the next room. I'd sit there working at the computer, listening to the actors speak in phony Southern accents. And I kept thinking that, if you could master that, copy the form, you could get away with any content you wanted.
Which I think is what happened with the movie Hound Dog with Dakota Fanning. It was a controversial coming-of-age movie about a twelve-year-old girl who lives a rather grim life in the South and has an exaggerated admiration for Elvis Presley. The poor girl is raped by a guy who says he'll give her Elvis tickets.
It's hard for me to judge since I actually watched Hound Dog and for the most part only listened to the Hallmark Hall of Fame movies, but I thought Hound Dog had the same feel to it as the Hallmark movies.
Master the form--the look and feel of a Hallmark Hall of Fame drama--and you can do anything you want as far as the content goes. Movies about abortion providers, medical marijuana, maybe a sympathetic portrayal of drug dealers.
Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Marco Rubio, acting tip
Jerry Seinfeld was on David Letterman and explained a trick they used with inexperienced actors. They would put something in his hands. He showed some clips from his show where he carried on a conversation while holding a cereal bowl or something.
If only Marco Rubio had known this. In the course of his speech he could have picked up his water bottle, talked for a minute, casually taking a drink. Then talk some more. Maybe wave it around a little---gesticulate with it. It would have made him less nervous.
They should have at least left the cap on the water bottle. Let him casually unscrew it while he continued speaking. Instead of wondering what he was doing taking a drink in the middle of the speech, let the viewers wonder when he's going to take a drink out of that thing.
That water bottle should have been his salvation, not his humiliation.
Where the hell was he, anyway? Was that a real background or something they made up to make him look presidential?
He should have done the thing Nixon did in the Checkers speech----start out behind the desk, then get up and step out in front of it. Maybe sit on the edge of the desk.
Maybe start with him at the desk reading his speech, then he'd put his papers down, stand up and start reading the teleprompter. Create the harmless illusion that he was now speaking extemporaneously.
Maybe start with him playing with a puppy. He looks up, notices he's on TV. He stands up and begins his speech while the puppy runs off camera.
How about driving? He could drive along in the car speaking to the camera pointing at him from the passenger seat. Then, at the end of the speech, he would stop the car and say, "We're here!"
If only Marco Rubio had known this. In the course of his speech he could have picked up his water bottle, talked for a minute, casually taking a drink. Then talk some more. Maybe wave it around a little---gesticulate with it. It would have made him less nervous.
They should have at least left the cap on the water bottle. Let him casually unscrew it while he continued speaking. Instead of wondering what he was doing taking a drink in the middle of the speech, let the viewers wonder when he's going to take a drink out of that thing.
That water bottle should have been his salvation, not his humiliation.
Where the hell was he, anyway? Was that a real background or something they made up to make him look presidential?
He should have done the thing Nixon did in the Checkers speech----start out behind the desk, then get up and step out in front of it. Maybe sit on the edge of the desk.
Maybe start with him at the desk reading his speech, then he'd put his papers down, stand up and start reading the teleprompter. Create the harmless illusion that he was now speaking extemporaneously.
Maybe start with him playing with a puppy. He looks up, notices he's on TV. He stands up and begins his speech while the puppy runs off camera.
How about driving? He could drive along in the car speaking to the camera pointing at him from the passenger seat. Then, at the end of the speech, he would stop the car and say, "We're here!"
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Poor Marco Rubio
More than one person compared Rubio's response to Obama's State of the Union address to that of Albert Brooks acting as anchorman in Broadcast News. The poor devil was terribly nervous. Sweating, dry mouth. The New York Times, CNN and all the networks posted short videos on YouTube showing only the moment when Rubio awkwardly stops for a drink.
J. Elvis Weinstein (the original voice of Tom Servo on MST3k) tweeted, "For the next month, anyone who offers Marco Rubio something to drink is going to sound sarcastic to him."
But isn't that the whole point of live TV? It seems insane. Video recording is no longer a novelty. They're just reading a speech. They're not making it up as they go. Would it really hurt anything if they read their teleprompters on videotape instead of live TV? Who would know the difference? A ten second tape delay could have taken care of that drinking thing.
What was the point of Saturday Night Live being live? What was the advantage there? It was terribly stressful on the performers. I heard John Frankenheimer in an interview say that all the directors who did live TV dramas in the '50s had terribly back problems because of the stress.
J. Elvis Weinstein (the original voice of Tom Servo on MST3k) tweeted, "For the next month, anyone who offers Marco Rubio something to drink is going to sound sarcastic to him."
But isn't that the whole point of live TV? It seems insane. Video recording is no longer a novelty. They're just reading a speech. They're not making it up as they go. Would it really hurt anything if they read their teleprompters on videotape instead of live TV? Who would know the difference? A ten second tape delay could have taken care of that drinking thing.
What was the point of Saturday Night Live being live? What was the advantage there? It was terribly stressful on the performers. I heard John Frankenheimer in an interview say that all the directors who did live TV dramas in the '50s had terribly back problems because of the stress.
Can't find a Pope-related movie in streaming video
I thought I'd watch something to commemorate the pope's resignation. Only thing I could think of was The Shoes of the Fisherman with Anthony Quinn as a persecuted Russian priest who is made Pope for some reason. He slips out of the Vatican dressed like a regular priest, helps save David Jansen's marriage and prevents a nuclear war. Described as a "Pope opera" by one critic.
Shoes of the Fisherman was unavailable for instant viewing on Netflix. So was The Cardinal and Foul Play. The Pope Must Diet wasn't there at all. Brother Sun, Sister Moon only available on DVD.
Many years ago, Foul Play starring Chevy Chase was scheduled to be shown on network TV. It had to be canceled because it was about an assassination plot against the Pope, and it was shortly after Pope John-Paul II got shot.
Shoes of the Fisherman was unavailable for instant viewing on Netflix. So was The Cardinal and Foul Play. The Pope Must Diet wasn't there at all. Brother Sun, Sister Moon only available on DVD.
Many years ago, Foul Play starring Chevy Chase was scheduled to be shown on network TV. It had to be canceled because it was about an assassination plot against the Pope, and it was shortly after Pope John-Paul II got shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)