Can anyone explain why there are two "MADE FOR TELEVISION MOVIE" categories with different lists of nominees? Or how "The Pacific" is both a made for TV movie and a miniseries?
Actually, it's not a "private" company, it's a publically traded corporation, which means that it has stockholders and an elected board of directors who might not think so highly of this use of $10m that could have gone into dividends.
(Ha ha, just kidding, this is America, stockholders and boards of directors never stop CEOs from doing insane stupid shit.)
I like that Long Island is apparently a separate state on those spreadsheets. Not being sarcastic -- I'm sure it's a necessary differentiator with this crowd.
Wait, has dude in pic #5 been duly convicted of witchcraft before being burned at the stake?
I never thought I'd be rooting for cops in riot gear, and yet here we are. I sure hope there was some reckless pepper-spraying.
A friend of mine swears that this story is true, from back in the day: her Uncle Carmine, who worked as a machinist, cut off his middle finger above the knucle while at work. Painful, obviously, but not life- or work-threatening, and not long after he was a back on the job. A few weeks later, a guy from his union comes around with a check for a few thousand dollars, this being back when a few thousand dollars was really worth something. "What the hell is this?" Carmine asks. "It's compensation for your finger," the union guy says. "It's in your contract."
A week later, he cut his ring finger above the knuckle off.
@aspiringexpatriate: Thanks for being patronizing! I'm a a decently sized film snob (was going to write "big" but that might be overstating it), but if you're "liking" or "enjoying" a film then something about it is good, pretty much by definition It may not be whatever qualities you deem as making something "great"(though note she doesn't just say that Something's Gotta Give isn't "great," she actually says it isn't *good*) but obviously something about the filmmaking has been successful, right? This gives rise to the question of why some aspects of filmmaking that elicit enjoyment have cultural prestige and some don't, which is the discussion I was trying to start. Are there pleasures we get from film that are actually bad (politically, aesthetically, what have you), and should we (or can we) work to repress those responses? Are there things we expect from film beyond just enjoyment, and if so what? Is it possible for film to be good on this scale but not actually enjoyable, and if so why would you want to see it?
On a side note, there's the whole phenomenon of enjoying a terrible movie ironically because it's laughably bad, but I don't think that's what Dargis is talking about when she says liked Something's Gotta Give.
Tangental to the main thrust of the interview, this:
"I really like Something's Gotta Give, but I don't think it's a good movie."
Is an intriguing sentence about which I think more should be said, maybe? What are we supposed to do with movies, other than like them, or really like them?
@Novaload: There must have been an enormous number of deaths and injuries with the random movements of horses, cars, pedestrians, bicycles, streetcars--amazing.
Actually, there were probably a lot fewer accidents than you might assume. The constant presence of random people and vehicles in the roadway caused drivers to be a lot more vigilant and drive a lot more slowly -- this film is a bit slowed down, but I'm guessing nobody on this street is going more than 15 or 20 miles an hour. The concept of "naked streets," where cars, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit vehicles mix in this way, is making a comback in city planning circles -- on streets that aren't intended to move auto traffic through on a rapid clip, it may actually be safer than roads that are signed at 35 mph but can sustain 50 mph.
I take "don't marry and do the right thing" under Brady as meaning that you should suck it up and marry girls you knock up with your fornication, yet they snidely call Adam Archuleta's kid a bastard even though he's marrying his babymomma. Can't win with these people!
"So you know I got some pics and smut on you that are gonna give you a taste of how it feels. I'm a sly dude."
Ha ha, silly Sen Salisbury, everyone knows that the market for smut on bloggers is pretty much non-existent. WE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW ABOUT DAULERIO'S PENIS.
I haven't lived in Buffalo since 1993, at which point, I'd estimate, that douche in the video was six or seven years old, tops, and: THEY'RE STILL SINGING THE FUCKING "SHOUT" SONG? Jesus.
"Sorry to hear about this. people who park in handicapped spaces, double park, park in the drive-thru, etc. are my pet peeves"
Way to seize the moral high ground there: by equating someone who prevents disabled people from accessing services with someone who prevents you from buying a jumbo fries without getting out of your car.
I'm frankly most concerned about the phrase "attached to the hip of performance enhancers." Is this supposed to be some variation on "joined at the hip," only making significantly less sense?
@hortense: Thanks for the kind words, Hortense! I think the way it works is like this: female viewpoint characters must protect themselves from secondary male characters who want to defile their chastity; viewpoint male characters must navigate the Mysterious Lady Emotions of secondary female characters in order to achieve the sexing. Simple!