kimmy

For some reason when I glance at the banner, my eye catches this as "Latest News: Forum Outrage", and it makes me wonder what Oleg posted this time. -k

This "Roman alphabet", "Jupiter" stuff is some of the wackiest stuff I've ever seen on this board. This is the first time I've seen a MLW user literally go insane right before our eyes since that time when "maplesyrup" had this idea that he ... hey, waitaminute... -k

uh huh. uh huh. uh huh. Now, tell me about your childhood... -k

I'm always amazed, Oleg, at how every thread you participate in veers off topic and spirals out of control into an unbridled celebration of idiocy. That might be... but the MTV Films division still seems to be in the hands of people who understand that middle-aged suits don't understand the audience they're aiming for. Being commercially successful isn't in itself a bad thing. (If nobody is making money, it means nobody is watching your movie.) The failure isn't when films achieve commercial success. It's when films are designed to achieve commercial success. When executives start demanding changes to make the film fit with what they think will make more money. "The General's Daughter" had a new ending shot, because focus groups said that the original ending left them angry and sad. The new ending left audiences feeling angry and sad too, because it seemed fake and stupid and left them wishing they had their $10 back. I once saw an interview where someone talked about Guillermo Del Toro's struggles in making "Hellboy". Every time he sent "dailys" to the studio people, they sent him back a boatload of stupid ideas that they wanted him to implement. They wanted Hellboy to have a cute little demonic pooch named "Helldog". They wanted him to drive around in a "Hellmobile". They wanted to replace Selma Blair with somebody sexier. They wanted Selma Blair's character "Liz" to have a costume and a super-hero name so that they could make her into action figure. They wanted goofy weapons and stuff so that they could make a line of toys. That's the kind of disaster I would envision if "Election" or "Napoleon Dynamite" were done by Disney (or some other mainstream studio) instead of by MTV Films. Thankfully, somebody in that corporate entity appears to understand that they can make more money by keeping their hands off. (Hellboy turned out well: Del Toro finally got fed up and told them that they would have to fire him if they wanted those changes to be made; they quit asking for changes, and they got a moderately successful franchise.) -k

Who said they did, cup-cake? -k

It's hard to tell, Oleg. Your enthusiasm for the manly lifestyle of these cave-dwelling dorks seems pretty sincere sometimes, and your contempt for the "social engineers" and the feminists and the outrage at the "stealing of balls" away from Canadian men seems pretty genuine. You're sure you're kidding? To paraphrase Winston Churchill, our system is the worst there is, except for all the others. I'm entirely human, and way too lacking in wisdom. -k

MTV Films has made a considerable number of youth-oriented movies. Some of them, like Election, have been surprisingly good. Some have been sheer unmitigated crap. Most have been at least to some degree a little different from what other studios think older teens and young adults want to watch.I think they've found a commercial niche in producing films that other producers would not "get". For example, I can't picture a typical 40-something studio exec looking over a treatment for "Napolean Dynomite" and thinking "yeah, this could work!" Or if they did, they'd completely revise the story and characters to fit what they view as commercially viable, thereby destroying what actually did make the movie a success. I as well. I had been resistant to seeing that film for obvious reasons, but when I finally was coerced into seeing it I came away impressed with her. She turns the proverbial pig's ear into a silk purse. -k

How stupid would someone who grew up in Canada have to be to believe that Sharia is "a better product"? The only Canadian dumb enough to think that is ... well, it's you, Oleg! If you buy into the idea that ignorance, inflexibility, dogmatism, and cowardice makes you strong, then sure, I suppose the Muslim fundamentalists are strong. Personally, I think those qualities make you a turd, not strong. It sounds like AfMANistan is the place you want to be! -k

I'm really sick this week so I have had some time to stay home and watch movies. Yesterday, I watched Election, a comedy and drama set in a suburban high school in Omaha, Nebraska. It presents a clash of wills between Tracy Flick, an annoyingly ambitious student who is determined to become class president, and Jim McAllister, a teacher who is determined to thwart her. Tracy, portrayed by Reese Witherspoon, is an only child, raised by a doting single mother who encourages Tracy's relentless drive and ambition. “Some people think I'm an overachiever, but I think they're just jealous. My mom says I'm different. You know, special? And I think that if you look at all the things I've accomplished so far, you'd have to agree.” She likens herself to Coca Cola, pointing out that they still try harder than everybody else even though they're already the #1 soft drink. Tracy is a snob, convinced of her own brilliance and of the mediocrity of everyone else around her. She is perplexed that she is not admired and appreciated by the other students. She can hardly wait to get to college, believing that she will finally be among her equals. Jim McAllister, portrayed by Matthew Broderick, is the protagonist and primary narrator of the film. Jim, “Mr M” to his students, is a dedicated teacher. Or at least, he thinks he is. He involves himself with the students, he pitches in to help with the student council, he talks with pride about how how he touches his students lives. The cliché teacher speech about shaping young lives, that is how Jim McAllister views himself. “Teaching is all I ever wanted to do. Standing in front of a room full of young people, trying to get them excited about the world, trying to make them think, preparing them for the tough moral and ethical decisions that would face them as adults. That's how I wanted to spend my life.” While Tracy sees herself as Coca Cola, we notice a number of times that Jim drinks Pepsi... the #2 soft drink. In a scene early in the movie, Jim poses questions about morals and ethics to his class, and while Tracy keeps shooting her hand up to answer, Jim looks around his classroom, hoping that somebody else-- anybody but Tracy-- will volunteer. If it were just that she were annoying, the animosity Jim has toward Tracy would be hard to understand. But that's not the root of it. Jim's best friend Dave was also a teacher at the school, who was fired for having a sexual relationship with Tracy. Dave's marriage and career were destroyed, while Tracy suffered no consequences at all. The incident was kept secret, and Tracy's reputation as a goody-two-shoes was unharmed. And with Tracy set to become class president by acclamation, that doesn't sit well with Jim. Jim recruits a dumb but kind-hearted jock, Paul (Chris Klein), to run against Tracy. Tracy quickly realizes that Paul had no ambitions of his own, and when she learns that Jim put him up to it, she begins to hate Jim as much as he hates her. At the start of the movie, Broderick is handsome and youthful looking. As the movie progresses, he becomes increasingly stressed and haggard looking, and later in the film, suffers a wasp-sting to his eyelid that causes grotesque swelling. The physical transformation mirrors his character, as he becomes less and less the paragon he tells us he is, and more and more of a hypocrite. He tells us he loves the students, but begins to turn a deaf ear to them. He tells us he loves his wife, but moves toward adultery. He talks about teaching morals and ethics, but his own morals and ethics fall completely apart. As narrator he tells us he doesn't blame Tracy Flick for what happened to his friend Dave, but as we watch we learn that he certainly does blame her, and his attempt to derail her dream of becoming class president is his attempt to achieve some small piece of symbolic justice. * * * Election is an entertaining movie, both as a comedy and a drama. It was a breakthrough for Reese Witherspoon, and launched Chris Klein into a successful career as well. The performance earned Witherspoon her first Golden Globe nomination, and Premiere Magazine ranked the performance as #45 on their 100 Greatest Movie Performances of All Time list. I thought Witherspoon was amazing as June Carter in “Walk The Line” but as Tracy Flick she is even better. While reading some of the reviews of the movie and opinions about Witherspoon's performance, I was surprised at how often she was described as a villain... "How wonderfully monstrous is the fabulous Reese Witherspoon in Alexander Payne's Election." "Like Humbert Humbert, the Reverend Harry Powell, and Baby Jane Hudson before her, Tracy Flick is a real and lasting contribution to the cinematic understanding of the villain, and the feather in Witherspoon's cap." I didn't see her as a villain. She's arrogant and annoying and ferociously ambitious, but mostly I think she is kind of a tragic figure. She is alone, and the whole of her self-image seems to be tied to the things she achieves, not the person she is. Her look of utter disbelief and emptiness when Mr McAllister announces Paul as the winner is truly heart-wrenching. Even though we've spent an hour and a half hoping to see this brat taught a lesson, when it finally comes it's a hollow victory for viewers and even for Mr McAllister. Jim McAllister is our protagonist but he is hardly a hero. As we watch the movie his hypocrisy and the depths he sink to are increasingly hard to stomach. The only completely sympathetic character in the film is Paul, who never becomes caught up in the election and never thinks badly of anyone, even Tracy. His lack of ambition and his naivety are, oddly, his most redeeming qualities. Interestingly, several female politicians often seem to be compared to Tracy Flick, including Elizabeth Dole, , and Sarah Palin. Newly appointed New York senator Kirsten Gillebrand has been nicknamed Tracy Flick, and it's not intended as a compliment. One cynic goes so far as to declare “All female politicians are Tracy Flick!”I think that this character, Tracy Flick, seems to tap into something that people find grating about ambitious women... and they see a little Tracy Flick in other ambitious women as a result. -k

TMZ claims that the whole thing is a performance and that Phoenix is making some kind of "mockumentary" of the whole stunt. -k

What new devilry is this?! -k

I dunno, the aboriginals were pretty pissed off about the Columbus 500th anniversary thing, weren't they? -k

What a load of crap. Are you building up to another "the social engineers are taking away mens' testicles" rant again? What happened, did the judge award custody of Oleg Jr to Mrs Bach until you promise to get back on your lithium tablets? -k

I'm curious to know, by what possible stretch of the imagination could you have interpretted my message to imply "that the IDF is helping"? You've missed the point in spectacular, record-breaking fashion. I suppose congratulations are in order. Eyeball started this thread 2 weeks ago to say that the tactics Hamas has chosen are not serving their cause. And the results of the Israel election appear to perfectly illustrate why. Hamas has harrassed Israelis to the point of electing a parliament where the leader will be either tough or tougher, and the balance of power is held by an ultra-nationalist party. What outcome could possibly have been *worse* for the people Hamas claims to represent? -k

I didn't read it in that detail, and don't care to. The main point I was making is that this is a "states rights" issue, not some attempt by states to secede from the union. Which for me makes it a definite "don't need to know more" issue. That doesn't follow. I think my auto insurance plan is a complete rip-off, but am compelled to pay into it, and having been thusly compelled I will absolutely make a claim against it should I have legitimate cause to do so. My objections to the insurance program might have some bearing if any sort of opt-out were available to me, but there is none. Perhaps objections like mine were considered at the time the policy was formulated, or perhaps not, but either way I am part of the program regardless of whether I like it or not, and having been compelled to participate I will receive the alleged benefits as well as pay the costs of membership. I have objections, I have ideas that the system could be made better, should voicing these issues disqualify me from benefits that I have paid into? If the administration wants to restrict the benefits of the stimulus package to states who support the plan, then the corollary is that there should be a meaningful opt-out for states who do not wish to support the plan. If there is no way to feasibly provide an opt-out, then the fair thing would be to consider reasonable objections, and proceed in the manner most consistent with the goals of the plan while respecting the constitution's division of state and federal jurisdiction and any other rules that might be tempting to break along the way (cough*NAFTA*cough). -k

Statistically, this has to be pretty amazing. Like on the order of getting hit by lightning on the same day you won the lottery. Space junk... ...meets space-junk. -k

So, in wake of the battle in Gaza, the Israeli election turned into a one-issue referendum on the question of how hard to crack down on Palestinians. And judging from the results, the answer is "harder". With centerist Tzipi Livni and right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu fighting to a virtual deadlock, the balance of power now resides with ultra-right wing leader Avigdor Lieberman, whose slogan "no loyalty, no citizenship" was a startling hit with Israeli voters. It seems likely that the result of the election will be a governing coalition between Netanyahu and Lieberman. There seems to be widespread agreement that the cause of the dramatic shift to the right in this election was the clash with Hamas, and the rocket attacks were if not the cause then at the very least the justification for that confrontation. And that, my friends, is the definition of "Not helping things." -k

I think Dancer's objection is not so much that the issue is being put forth for discussion, but rather the tone. "8 States Declare Sovereignty!" makes it sound like this is the buildup to a new American Civil War, at least to Canadian ears who associate the word "sovereignty" with Quebec's on again, off-again quest for independence. In fact, look under the hood a little, and it seems to be more along the lines of the federal vs provincial jurisdiction spats that break out every 3 months between Ottawa and Quebec/Alberta. These state lawmakers are not attempting to secede from the United States. They are alleging that elements of the stimulus plan are an intrusion of federal government into areas of state jurisdiction and are taking action to assert their authority (ie, sovereignty) over areas given to states under the US Constitution. This story might sound like big news if you think "sovereignty" means independence, but becomes pretty boring once one reads enough to be clear on what the states are actually pressing for. -k

I'm sorry, August... I can't help with this one. This appears to require the services of a shaman, gypsy, sorcerer, or houngan. -k

So that dish in the green-room... those weren't Tic-Tacs? Someone suspects (or, at least hopes) that the performance was a gag. -k

I don't think anybody thought he wanted the land-mass of Israel to be literally removed from the globe, so I'm not sure what the big distinction being made here is. Are we supposed to assume there's some interpretation of "regime" that makes calling for it to "vanish from the pages of history" less threatening? Norouzi states: and adds... ...so while Norouzi may be quibbling with the translation, he is not disputing that Ahmadinejad was talking of ending Israel as a nation. -k

The CBC reports that the tough economic times have hit the Taliban. People aren't opening up their wallets to support Islamic theocracy like they did back in the good old days... And to make things worse, the price of weapons is through the roof! Perhaps there is some sort of stimulus package available. But the cash crunch isn't the only thing frustrating your local Taliban representative... "By my count, we're at least 57 virgins short..." I find it amusing that a group dedicated to the complete oppression of women would be foiled by the lack of anyone to do laundry and make sandwiches. -k

I once heard an audio course on speaking in which the instructor claimed that people subconsciously mimic the people they're speaking to as a means of building rapport. Speakers instinctively match their pace, tone, and volume to that of the person they're conversing with, he claimed. If that's the case, then perhaps "playing dumb" is an attempt to build rapport. (I suspect that women of all hair colours can relate to men acting dumb around them, however.) Whatever the reason behind the change in behaviour, it again shows that people are influenced by the hair. As did the experiment mentioned earlier, where business students evaluated a group of female job applicants and found the women were deemed more competent and more qualified when they had brown hair than the same women when they had blonde hair. If somebody tells me one of those stupid jokes and I tell him or her to get bent, their reaction is invariably-- invariably-- "oh, come on. Everybody knows it's just jokes. Nobody really believes it's true." And yet, there is a ton of anecdotal evidence and at least a few experiments that prove otherwise. I'm curious, RB... earlier you asked "Can women afford not to be blonde? Blondes are more desirable, they get all the help and seem to have more advantage over brunettes." Has this discussion changed that view changed any, or do you still feel like blondes have it better off? -k

I support Dancer, and find the tune annoying. The animation is cute, however. -k

Why need they? Their authors might argue that there is plenty of criticism of the Christian right in North America but a shortage of mainstream criticism of conservative Islam. Or, the author's intent might not be to oppose all forms of extremism, but simply Muslim extremism. The lack of countering criticism of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and Wicca doesn't make the criticism of Islam any less valid, does it? If someone wanted to write about the Indo-Canadian gang situation in Vancouver, do they need to provide articles about white-people gangs and native gangs and Caribbean gangs before their Indo-Canadian gang article is a valid criticism? If I want to make another post in the Blondes thread arguing that there is actual discrimination, do I have to provide a disclaimer that says "yes, I know there are many other forms of discrimination in our society but right now I am just arguing about this particular one and am in no way attempting to portray this as the singular scope of my concerns for social justice issues"? -k {perhaps I should use that in my signature, as it looks like my chances of getting my green energy subsidy are almost zilch at this point.}