I managed to finish The September Society right on the verge of September which amused me although it didn't really matter. In the end, I felt the plot failed to live up to my expectations from the book's first third. The characters are quite charming although perhaps even a tad too charming. I mean, people have been killed in most unpleasant ways and yet Our Hero persists in being, first and foremost, gracious to his valet, properly attired in morning coat, unalterably pleasant to his alcoholic doctor friend and his daffy wife who can only go on interminably about a baby name, and always on time for breakfast, lunch, tea and dinner at all the best places. He never breaks polite stride even when interviewing suspects or possible murderers, at least not until the very end when it all get solved and resolved far too smoothly to make sense that it all took so long. Indeed I am probably being unduly critical of a genre where well-placed gentlemen and proper women are making their way through the end of the Victorian era, but I like the time and place so well that it was a bit saddening. The book begins promisingly but, save for one nice surprise, works too hard to justify the not-unexpected, pat and somewhat silly end. Nevertheless I shall give the previous tale in the series a try.

Labels: books, history, writing

There are an amazing number of no-fee, lovely state parks in Connecticut and I spent time in one of them today. It's just north of Brookfield and called Lover's Leap Park because of the bridge (originally wooden planks, rebuilt in 1895 with spiffy red iron sidings) from which, tradition has it, the Pootatuck Indian Chief Waramaug’s daughter, Princess Lillinonah, and her lover plunged to their deaths late in the mid-eighteenth century. One trail leads to the rock formation that gives the park its name and for the most part is an easy walk. There is another alluring branch of the path that heads slightly steeply downward and around to end up at water's edge, and another twist would take you onto a promontory with the scene (seen) here. I will go back soon in appropriate shoes to finish both, since the possibility of losing my camera and/or my neck did not outweigh the pleasure of doing either in flip-flops which were more than adequate for path walking but unlikely to be so for what I could see of the others. I had not planned on this tiny adventure but could not resist once I saw it and did not have sneakers with me, let alone hiking shoes. I am a poor excuse for a well-prepared boy scout, patently, although I did extricate a cigarette end and drink cup, like a good steward.

Another pleasure of the day were sweet ground cover, a frequent late summer treat along with purple clover and lacy white flowers. Some interesting tree root and rock formations suggested serious storm activity now and then. The weather was neither too hot nor too humid for a leisurely walk and the tree cover was enough to keep one from baking but so thick as to not let the sun through. And there were hardly any flying or buzzing things to discourage one even a little. There were two motorcyclists but they just shot through and went around quickly, not disturbing anyone. And there were only two other groups of people walking along while I was there, one a quartet of high school students talking about what subjects they were taking this semester (school starts tomorrow for them) and what they like and loathe. They almost scampered passed me taking their picnic things down this cliff toward the fairly large ledge a bit of the way down that seems perfect for a pleasant hanging-out picnic, if a bit scary to contemplate how easy it would be to hurt oneself and/or fall off. One of the boys stopped, turned and said, "oh, sorry, are we taking your place? were you on your way there?" I hadn't been and I said I hadn't been but how gracious it was of him to ask. He smiled and went on his way. Nice moment. Nice park.

Brookfield also has a well-reputed Craft Center with a shop and a nice sitting / eating / chatting area beside a rushing creek and waterfall. I may have to take a class there to repay them for allowing me the relaxation and delight of spending time in both.

As I made my way north before going home, I stopped in Kent because it's seemed the perfect place to stop for a cup of tea on my way home. It turned out their library was having a great big book sale, than which there is little that's as much fun, to my way of thinking. I resisted the set of Dickens that was too musty even for me but did pick up an early Peter Pan edition with lovely plate etchings and an illustrated sequel to Heidi (you'd think I knew Johanna Spyri wrote other books but I didn't, until then - she wrote 27 others, to be precise!). I also got the book of In a Lonely Place and felt bad that I hadn't thought to find out that one of my favorite movies is based on a book (by Dorothy Hughes who also wrote Ride the Pink Horse, another marvelous noir film); I can't wait to read it. Then I strolled through some of Kent's charming stores, ideal for gift-giving browsing and buying. I topped the day off spooning smooth strawberry gelato, sitting on a wooden bench beside a tree on a bright green expanse of grass. What a nice day.

Labels: places, travel, weather

It's a gloomy day today in the northeast. This time it's meant to be the edges of the fourth hurricane of the season but it's been such a rainy spring and summer that it doesn't feel or look any different from oh so many previous days. (It rained on 28 of June 's 30 days, by the way.) When one is very tired from an intense work week, thick cloud cover in the sky is unfortunately more influential than it should or might otherwise be. I will therefore take even more deliberate enjoyment than usual today from small things. Like the wonderful recycled-material plastic-looking carry bag with humorous French phrases and sketches.

Labels: fun, weather

My goal is going to be foiled if I don't post something today. Too busy to think but must post. (This is cheating, surely.)

Labels: writing

What would someone named Charles Finch be, if not the author of well-phrased mystery novels set in and around London? I am so glad to have found his "The September Society" in my local Barnes & Noble (see, physical bookstores do still have a purpose) because the story, the characters and his writing are altogether marvelous. His descriptions of buildings and life in London and Oxford are particularly vivid and captivating. Added to that, he seems to be a decent chap (the U.K. version of nice guy, don't you know) as witness his page of advice for writers and his request for feedback and thoughts

Update - How serendipitous and wonderful that on the very day I was talking and writing about how much I was enjoying this book and, in particular, its detailed tour of Oxford - especially the Radcliffe Camera (now the main reading room of the Bodleian Library), the bing.com daily photo is this. Jung would be proud.

Labels: books, u.k., writing

What do you think about san serif versus serif fonts for blog posts? I like being able to distinguish post text and quotations and titles, etc. from each other at a quick glance but is serif just too annoying and/or old-fashioned??

Labels: blogs (mine), web tools

Hegel changed the political world over 200+ years ago, Goldwyn changed our entertainment expectations and Man Ray changed the visual landscape.

1952 – Pee Wee Herman (Paul Reubens)
1929 – Ira Levin
1910 - Mother Teresa
1908 - Lyndon B. Johnson
1890 - Man Ray
1882 - Samuel Goldwyn
1770 - Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel

Quite the group of birthday celebrants today.

Labels: anniversaries, people of note

In one of those quirky twists of fate that sometimes seem perpetrated by impish adolescent gods intent on amusing themselves at humans' expense, the brother who expected to be only background support ended up outliving his father as well as three starting and starring brothers. He had shouldered and carried on their demands and dreams in a half-century congressional career and life in the spotlight

Ted Kennedy was a complex man whom history will rightly evaluate with the entire spectrum of grays. He was the youngest son of a father who drove his boys to be as powerful as possible regardless of personal consequences and even, at times, we have come to learn, regardless of legalities. Whether the father believed he and his sons knew best what others should do and have, or whether he simply thirsted for naked power for them all, only they know. They were, however, unusually able to grab and hold attention and power, and to amass the influence of other rich and powerful people around the world. For better or worse, they changed the way our country, if not most of the world, viewed and styled itself.

The Kennedy family said today that "We've lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever."

Various government figures, including President Obama, have issued glowing statements about Kennedy's influence and impact on legislation and society.

Indeed I am sure he was larger than life to his family and colleagues, as all the Kennedys have been to all of us. And his absence will doubtless cause a vacuum at family gatherings and in Senate meetings.

He had wealth, success, popularity, fame; he was surrounded by beautiful people; he lived what we call the good life and lived it intensely. He also had great sadness, even tragedy. I suspect his inner life was light years away from the rosy hail-fellow-well-met public persona he presented to us all. We can not and should not judge him, partly because that is not at all our prerogative. But it seems to me that we should exercise balance, moderation and judiciousness even while giving praise.

The Kennedys jumped onto the world's stage, front and center, demanding political and social attention. But living so publicly means that everything is public - good behavior and bad, mistakes, successes, triumphs, failures and embarrassments no matter how personal. It can't be easy. It must be especially difficult if the choice is not one you would make. Ted was, to put it harshly, the runt of the litter and, according to what we know (of people we do not actually know), he was the least whipper-snapper smart of the boys and the least interested in the so-called family business of power and government. Like all of us, he was flawed. But his flaws were visible to millions of people. Perhaps he partied so hard and made so many apparently questionable choices because the pressure was literally overwhelming.

Ted Kennedy often urged decency and kindness, and he accomplished much legislative progress. He deserves appreciation, respect and praise. We should honor him and feel sorrowful for his family. Because he was so public and we know so much about what happened, however, we also should not forget the women he misused and the elitism he lived while espousing decency and generosity for all. The mistakes and disconnects did happen and should not be pretended away. Too many are alive who remember it all - the glamor, the luxury, the amazing legislation, the sad and awful behavior, the beautiful family, the sadness, the beauty, over and over in an odd sort of rotation. He contributed much that was positive, some that wasn't, he led a dramatic and public and complicated personal life, but perhaps, in the end, the words with which he honored his brother say it most succinctly and best, namely that he "need not be idealized or enlarged in death beyond what he was in life."

Labels: events, people of note

He's still at it. Finished his 26th marathon and posted about it on his Twitter page. Extraordinary.

Labels: amazements, events, people of note

Apologies for yet another iteration of this page. Some rare readers and I quite liked the see-through-to-Paris layout but some computers with different graphics capabilities displayed text and background with too closely-similar values. Perhaps as a result, larger graphics and headings had fuzzy edges and some text was fuzzy. Heaven forfend that every precious word emanating from my fingers not be completely legible so I fiddled and now all seems well. Although it is now perhaps a bit less exciting and interesting, it has the merit of being legible. Merit, that is, if one actually wants it read.

Labels: blogs (mine), web tools

I was casually considering moving to Word Press for a slew of fairly unimportant reasons so I started meandering through their front page info. It all looked kind of nice and clean. Almost had me hooked. Until three things. One, you have to download their software which means you can only modify the design - if you are so inclined to poke around their code which I gather isn't all that easy anyway - from your home PC and where's the fun in that. Also, you have to pay nearly $30 a year in order to be allowed to poke around in the code. Seems kind of weird. That almost sent me packing. Then I read that sometimes they may insert ads on your blog, not asking first or anything, just doing it. EXCUSE ME??? Here's the exact text: "Advertising: To support the service we may occasionally show Google text ads on your blog, however we do this very rarely." And, guess effing what? If you don't like that, you can PAY for the privilege of NOT having any ads ever "for a low yearly fee" of another thirty-ish dollars. Reminds me of how you have to pay for manual gear shifts instead of automatic - even though cars are inherently standard and it takes more work to make them automatic. Who decides what "should be" so much the norm that the other choice should be charged for? Anyway, what the heck is up with that? Charging fees for NOT having ads and NOT locking down the code?

Labels: blogging, web tools

Having just finished Danial Silva's engrossing current best seller, The Defector, I find myself in a moral quandary about good and evil as far as doing evil deeds in the service of good. I won't go into details about the plot in case a rare reader or two will read the book (the word "spoiler" never prevents me from reading on and then inevitably being sorry I did). Silva's books follow the life and experiences of a grandchild of German Jews who has become a superbly skillful soldier. Gabriel Allon and his mentor go through their lives trying to correct the significant evils done to people they love and to all the other millions attacked and killed by Hitler and Stalin, among others. They champion the bravery of those who withstood the attacks and profess to be doing everything in the name of people who went before them. Theirs is a tone of deep and intense beneficence and the moral high-road.

And yet they perpetrate great violence and kill many people, often viciously. Does God (if there even is a God, of course) distinguish between a bad man's prayers and a good man's prayers? Is it, in fact, morally acceptable for A Good Person to perform vicious and violent acts, to annihilate a many people, simply because he is good and they are not?

Labels: questions, writing

I watched the first episode of the new season of Project Runway and felt a wide and wild range of reactions. To begin with, it was pleasant to spend time with Heidi Klum and Tim Gunn again. They are beautiful people and engaging to welcome into one's living room. The new / current crop of contestants seems unusually and unfortunately insecure as evidenced by their (excessively) intense speeches about being soooo fantastic and The Best and everything else they had to say about themselves. On the other hand, drawings and photos of their previous work were fantastic! Their clothing looks high end as far as material and design, and is visually both interesting and unexpected. I especially look forward to the designs from the designer who wants to design for regular size people (who??).

Here's the thing, though. I totally understand and sympathize with how unbelievably emotional and difficult it must be to do something like this, no matter how much you want it. To leave your own studio and expose your designs (and your face and personality, too, of course) to millions of people. To actively begin to fulfill your professional and artistic dreams in such a very public way. It must be earth-shattering in good and bad ways. But is it entertainment? Is it even appropriate to have voyeurs audiences watch as contestants hit the wall as they come to realize and try to come to terms with the little green argumentative men in their heads (hey, mine are green, okay?). I might choose to watch a show about the psychology of challenge competitors and how difficult it is, but I'm not sure I want that show as part of Runway every week. I don't know. Am I being intolerant?

Eventually everyone sorted themselves out and produced impressive results. Even the most fallen-apart of them. Well, except for the designer who either wanted to sabotage the whole thing or really was from another planet. The producers must have thought she had more to offer than her other-planet-ness, right? I mean, she actually stood on her head and meditated instead of doing a sketch.... I suppose there are different ways to focus one's creative muse, but if you're on a soccer field you probably should at least use a ball and your feet instead of a pen and pencil, you know what I mean?

If even some of the season's designs are as good as the first round, it will be amazing.

Labels: fashion, tv

Shopping. I just have to say publicly that I continue to find it amazing and wonderful that Target makes it so easy to shop there. I bought various things last week, some at one of their stores 300+ miles away, and when I concluded that a few of them weren't ideal, they just accepted the returns, no questions asked - as indeed they had said they would. Few merchants do do what they say, for one thing, let alone pleasantly.

Television. Some shows are great fun to watch even after perhaps hundreds of viewings. "As Time Goes By" - Jean, Lionel, Alistair, Judith, Sandy, Harry, Rocky, Madge, Mrs Bale, etc., etc. - is such a one. And although it's not as endlessly tolerable because it can be a bit annoying, "Keeping Up Appearances" - Hyacinth, Richard, Emmet, Elizabeth (by the way, are they brother and sister or husband and wife?), Daisy, the awesome Onslow (who, incongruously, has his very own fan club!), etc. - is another one.

Movies. One of those so-called zany Hollywood films is showing on PBS tonight - "My Man Godfrey" with gorgeous Carole Lombard and fantastic William Powell. It's in a class with a few other absolute gems but it's right up there. And it's quite apt, surprisingly so, for today's social issues, a mere 73 years later.

Driving. I continue to enjoy driving my 5-speed coupe and have taken to spending at least a couple of hours of every weekend day on the road. Today I went northeast and then came home quite roundabout-ly and it was all most pleasant. A stick shift makes me stay completely attentive, for one thing, but also feels that I am really driving and taking part in the experience. Love it.

Labels: shopping, thoughts, transportation, tv

Why did Gordon Brown release the Lockerbie bomber? Was he trying to attract good karma to himself and to Britain? I mean, compassion because of the man's terminally illness is admirable in a broad philosophical sort of way but the relatives of all the people who died must feel distressed at the karmic imbalance in extending kindness to him.

What was David Paterson thinking when he ascribed base political motives and racism to those opposing his possible run for Governor of New York? Does he truly not know that he has been less than entirely ept, often, sometimes downright inept?

Why do people care that and/or where presidents vacation? Why object to the Obamas' week-long trip to Martha's Vineyard? Why begrudge them a few refreshing days amid in one of America's most beautiful places, hearing waves and feeling sea air and sun?

Labels: ocean, travel

It's one of those times when I don't have anything to say that seems interesting - and yet I have committed to writing at least one post every day as a warm-up to NaNoWriMo. So I hope it counts toward the percentages to write something like this. Is this an onomatopoeic post, do you suppose?

Labels: writing

NPR has an article today on good mystery stories. I'm surprised and a bit disappointed that I've only read two of these, being a devoted mystery reader. They all sound fantastic.

Labels: books, writing

The long wait is over (heh). I was away and had only occasional computer time.

Labels: blogs (mine)

On the strong recommendation of a friend and after reading a whole lot of wildly enthusiastic book blogging about Maud Hart Lovelace, I bought the first Betsy-Tacy story and hope to read it this weekend with one of t2cgitw since she's the same age as the main character. If I like it even a tiny percent as much as the recommenders, I will then be reading all the sequels that take Betsy eventually into her twenties.

I also bought the unabridged audio of The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society which has been raved about and does sound intriguing. I enjoy "reading" this way on almost-work-day-long drives because it makes the length of the drive seem like something I actually choose and want to do, apart from getting to the destination, of course. I only buy unabridged audios so I know I'm not losing any important words even if there are things perhaps lost in the translation from printed and internalized to spoken and heard. A while ago, I "read" Charles McCarry's Tears of Autumn which was so good that I proceeded to read the "real" book to spend more time with the characters and see if the audio failed to convey any nuances (not many).

Labels: books, writing

Good interview with the running Eddie here. Yes, he's still at it....

Labels: amazements, celebrations

Les Paul has died. He was 94 which is certainly a good run (although the older I get, the younger 100 sounds) and he made quite a wonderful difference in many people's lives. As a musician, a guitarist, a composer and lyricist, a fantastic singer/partner with Mary Ford, a designer of guitars and amplification technology. . . . I recommend reading about him, even here, and listening to anything you can get your hands on, if you love the sheer sound of agile playing and singing.

Labels: music, people of note

It's Alfred Hitchock's one hundred and tenth birthday today. It figures he'd be born on a 13th so it would be on a Friday the 13th every so often.

Labels: anniversaries, movies, people of note

Eddie Izzard continues his month-long marathon runs - read all about it on the BBC page about Eddie's run which includes relevant links to Twitter, YouTube and EI's blog, where you can watch and donate, etc.

Labels: amazements, people of note

Someone recommended the British miniseries "Mistresses" to me and, dutiful listener that I am, I snagged the first disc from Netflix. I've now watched all of season 1 and two episodes of season 2 and am still not sure how to evaluate it. The actors are fantastic (Sharon Small, Sarah Parish, Orla Brady and Shelley Conn (a great niece of Merle Oberon's)) and the production values are high. It's glitzy at times, as the houses and restaurants everyone frequents are lush and lovely supposedly because the people have good jobs or lots of money from other sources. But the characters are amazingly adept at making really bad decisions and coming to ghastly conclusions about their families and lives. Their extraordinary ability to be idiotic and make bad judgments really strains my credulity. On the other hand, we vicariously experience bad choices being made and then played out which may have instructive usefulness or even merit similar to watching horror films. My real problem is that it's so much fun to watch these women go through their lives making appalling choices and drawing ridiculous conclusions and I can't wait for them to shoot the third season and release it on dvd!

Labels: movies, tv

In case any rare readers haven't watched the conclusion yet, I won't reveal the winner just in case they've dvr'd it and want a little surprise. But I do wonder what those think who know the outcome? One of my friends completely disagreed with the choice. Another far preferred the person who won over the second-place finisher. Meanwhile, although the two finalists had very specific ideas about what their new shows could be, as it turns out, the new show diverged quite a bit (read about it here if you dare). I've TiVo'd it but haven't seen it yet so I can't report on my own reaction. The commenters are pretty funny on the FN blog.

Labels: food, tv

The extraordinarily funny, intelligent and outside-most-boxes comedian Eddie Izzard is doing something very different this month. He's running a month-a-day, more or less, all during August to raise money for Comic Relief charities. He's blogging about it is here and the Comic Relief page about it is here (and you can donate there, as well). I'm not sure what will prevent him from dropping dead of a heart attack and broken feet somewhere along the line but it's an awesome effort.

Update: the BBC page about Eddie's run includes links to Twitter and his blog and YouTube, etc.

Labels: amazements, people of note

Phrases like "calm down" and "what the heck" rarely accomplish much and are nowhere near as good as asking questions that get the reader / questionee to ask his/her own questions. To that end I refer you to:
--CGHill (a/k/a Dustbury) here on various recent events, and
--John Galt here on the healthcare debate (for want of a better word).
These are admirable pieces of writing to me. When I write questions, no matter how carefully I think I have crafted them, evidently they often sound as if I have an answer in mind and that particularly distresses me when I really do not. The actual problem I know I have, however, is that no sooner do I pose or even write a question, I hear a rebuttal or a follow-up question or a comment or an argument in my head, and from there on I almost certainly pose phrases with those in mind. Which makes it hard to write about subjects with many nuances and sides and shadings.

Labels: questions, writing

On the one hand I cannot conceive or even clearly remember life without t2cgitw. On the other hand it seems astonishing that over five years have gone by since they joined us and that they will begin Kindergarten in a mere three weeks.

Labels: children, family

Blogs that use Sitemeter are again (as last year and the year before that, at various times) bouncing viewers to http://dg.specificclick.net/%3Fu when one tries to read them. You can click back to the desired blog and each return allows your stay to be slightly longer but it doesn't stop entirely. I thought at first that it was the viewer that controlled the problem but since I don't use sitemeter clearly that's not the case. For what it's worth, like spam email unless you reply to them, this dg thing isn't harmful in a spy or viral sense. I sure wish websites and blogs, et al, were unassailable by nibbling hackers and other vermin.

Labels: nastiness, websites

While continuing to use Bing and Google at different times and continuing to try and discern differences and/or better or worse things about each, I get to see Bing's terrific daily photos. This is today's charming mother and child:

Labels: photos

Just finished The Secret Servant by Daniel Silva. If you like spy novels and/or have been a fan of Gabiel Allon, self-described "master art restorer and sometime officer of Israeli intelligence," this is a must-read. Silva's writing is easy enough for people used to reading best sellers and good enough that people used to more literary structure won't be unhappy. The Secret Servant is fast-moving although not always believable in that same way that spy movies often have the bad guys drop dead after a well-directed punch from a good guy, while the good guys get thoroughly beaten or starved or whatever and yet live to fight on, perhaps that same afternoon or the next morning. Suspensions of that kind of disbelief aside, this is a good example of an entertaining and interesting genre. Also, because Silva's research and studying includes many experienced authorities, there is quite a bit here to learn about Islamic fundamentalism.

Labels: books, writing

Using the international way of stating dates ("m/d/y" as opposed to our order of "d/m/y"), we have another sublime - though fleeting - moment of timely charm on August 7th (8/7/9 to Americans but 7/8/9 to much of the rest of the world). So raise a toast! And as with the July version, if you are so inclined, watch this clip.

Labels: amazements

If you did, it might be because Twitter and Facebook were both down for part of the day, quelle horreur - read about it here. Apparently both social networking sites were the targets of some kind of hacking but whatever it was, it certainly caused consternation.

BTW, recently I've been seeing and hearing Twittering described as a kind of personal "mini-blogging" which is an interesting phrase but I'm not sure if it's accurate. There are many kinds of blogging, some political, some professional, some anecdotal, some personal, etc., etc. Are there as many kinds of Twittering? I wonder? And I wonder what regular-size (heh) bloggers think about equating "tweeting" and "mini-blogging"?

Labels: blogging, headlines, twitter

According to this article, at some time in the not-too-distant-future, we will have to pay a fee to get news on the internet. You'd think - considering plummeting hard-copy newspaper sales and all - that the people planning this (if indeed they are planning it and this isn't just them throwing the idea out to see if it floats) would realize its folly. For one thing, there will (continue to) be ways around subscription articles (a solution for some subscriber-only articles at present, for example, is copying a headline then plopping it into a search engine and opening the free result). Also, although television news is far less detailed than print or internet, and the anchors usually shout a lot or flirt with the camera/viewer, and the content emphasizes way celebrity/ gossip/ entertainment, tv news is available eighty gazillion hours a day. Also, too, there are bound to be services providing news for free so that will mean that any that charge fees will have fewer subscribers than they expect and/or count on. As with hiking commuter and other fees, there is always a balance to consider between increased revenue from increasing or adding fees and decreased revenue from refusal to buy a product at that or perhaps any fee. And is it a good idea to add one more claim on people's money at a time when there's not quite enough to go around for most of us? My prediction - hope - is that they will realize this is a bad idea and not do it.

Labels: modern times, news

Laura reports that, a mere one year after they were hired as co-hosts for "At the Movies," E-Entertainment's Ben Lyons and TCM's Ben Mankiewicz will soon be leaving, to be replaced by the New York Times's A.O. Scott and the Chicago Tribune's Michael Phillips. Technically, this is more a re-replacement because Scott and Phillips were frequent guest hosts either separately or together during the iteration of the show after Siskel and Ebert and before Mank and Lyons. I've never really liked Scott and Phillips all that much, I'm afraid - they're both perceptive and verbally clever but I have found them a bit too old-school and stodgy. OTOH, I will continue to watch - partly just because I like to watch (heh, hat tip to Peter Sellers) and partly because it's interesting to see what's coming out. I just won't enjoy it quite as much.

Some, Laura among them, never liked Lyons on the show and thought he was light and uninteresting; I'm sure they aren't sad to see him go. I actually kind of liked him, though, because he brought a viewpoint to the critique-al table that is rarely heard from . . . intone this next word dramatically. . . Critics. Most critics are older, came up on traditional movie-making and the whole history of it all. They love to show (off) how much they know about directors and the industry and so on. But Lyons and Mankewicz (someone with as solid a movie pedigree as even the most traditional elitist could wish for) seemed to be two guys who like movies a lot, without pretention, and I thought they conveyed their enjoyment and awareness. That made it fun to watch their show and listen to their discussions. I look forward to following both of them elsewhere.

Labels: movies, tv

Why is it even up for discussion whether texting should be allowed prohibited while driving cars or trains or planes? Does it require legislation to make people not walk down the middle of a highway? I mean, things that are utterly dangerous and foolish don't need laws against them for people to know not to do them, do they? Talking on a cellphone can leave two eyes and one hand free, after all, whereas texting always requires at least two hands and two eyes (until they come up with an app for voice-to-text, anyway).

Labels: curiosities, madness

I am getting awully tired of hearing about it and even more tired of hearing the over-wrought analyses that blame The Cambridge Incident of 2009 on racial and/or intellectual attitudes. Why does it have to be so complicated? Why does it have to have been anything more than two individuals reacting instinctively and hot-headedly, although entirely understandably? Don't we do ourselves and them a disservice by calling it all kinds of other things? And don't we thereby also trivialize racism?

My own example may prove my point. Back in the day, as they say, I was a hippie-ish young mother, complete with long hair, mascara, tie-dyed skirt and flowy blouse. One morning I drove to work and saw police barricades at both ends of the four-block stretch that led to my office. I drove around a couple of times and, being nearly late, convinced myself that the barricades were meant to prohibit thru traffic but not prevent residents or workers from access. Although I may have been correct, the way I went about acting on my conclusion was not and the error of my ways was quickly made clear because no sooner had I turned into the street than a policeman ran over, loudly telling me to "stop right there." He called me "honey" and "hippie-girl" among other sobriquets including ones I won't write here. I felt quite scared (you know that odd feeling as if your blood is rippling right under your skin?) but wasn't about to let him know it so I stopped my car and started to explain as if to a dim-witted lamppost that I needed to get to work in that building in the middle of the block. I was loud and sarcastic and demanded to know why he wouldn't let me go through. He said it was none of my concern. We were both very angry and both thought we were completely correct. Eventually, when I sneered something along the lines of "come on, let me go to work, this is getting ridiculous," he snapped something along the lines of "oh you think it's ridiculous, do you" and pulled out his book and wrote me a ticket for "insubordination" - putting the lie, by the way, to the news people I've heard asserting that one cannot get a ticket for rudeness unless a crowd is gathering.

Labels: modern times, personalities

A friend of mine was on a panel about Woodstock at the Darien Library last week. Apparently he was a young boy at the time, in a car on the way to spend some time at a house by a lake near Bethel and they got stuck in the traffic (as I did too, on the way to my family's house in Vermont). Well, apparently my friend wrote a short story/memoir kind of thing about it and someone saw it and showed it to a woman who was writing a book about Woodstock, what with the 40th anniversary and all, and one thing led to another and now he's having his fifteen or so minutes of odd fame. I say "odd" because (a) he doesn't remember it because (b) he wasn't actually there and (c) he was only 7 and anyway (d) his father hated "those annoying hippies."

An amusing/cynical side note is that the book is entitled "Woodstock Revisited: 50 Far Out, Groovy, Peace-Loving, Flashback-Inducing Stories from Those Who Were There" and is therefore an example of how untrustworthy titles and perhaps reporting in general are since we have personal knowledge of one of the 50 eponymous people not being there. But I'm happy my friend is getting time in the limelight - he's a really nice guy - and he does know what he's doing and he's having a blast with it. He's being interviewed by newspapers and was taped for appearances on NY1 as well as some stuff on WLIW.

Oh, AND he thought Darien Library was awesome - as indeed it is - and was delighted that I know and like it too.

Labels: curiosities, friends, music, news, writing

A friend told me she heard someone on the radio present a wry refutation of racism. It requires an understanding of misanthropy but the gist of it - and I apologize if I am misstating in any way - is that there are more than enough reasons to dislike people and be annoyed by them and not want to spend time with them so there's just no need to dislike or avoid anyone because of their color or race. Nice, right?! Well, not nice but but you know what I mean.

Labels: wit

It's James Mason Day on TCM today for a whole 24 hours. They're showing many of the famous films like A Star Is Born and North By Northwest, of course, as well as Lord Jim and the wonderful, touching Heaven Can Wait. James Mason Day also includes many smaller, unexpected and surprising (to me, anyway) films.

It bears mentioning that Dorothy Parker was one of the writers on Star Is Born, along with Moss Hart and some others, which explains why it's not just drivel, I suppose. And Ernest Lehman, the writer of NxN, also wrote the screenplays for The King and I, Sweet Smell of Success, Westside Story, Hello Dolly, Family Plot, The Sound of Music and others. Whew.

Judy Garland is not one of my favorite performers, partly because I always hear that omnipresent echo of her sad life when I see her, but holy cow she sings magnificently in Star. And she looks fantastic in that huge-skirted, light-and-dark violet dress with its big-shouldered shrug as she sings Melancholy Baby in a nightclub during the visualization of her rise to fame.

I don't know why my first reaction to James Mason is always that he's a little creepy and doesn't interest me and then, after five minutes, I can't turn away.

Labels: actors, movies, writing

In case one's children and grandchildren don't believe one (me), The Seventh Veil shows girls romping around in their gym uniforms that are the same ridiculous pleated almost-dresses we wore in the late sixties at the Catholic academy I attended in New York City. I don't think anyone would believe it unless there were actual evidence. Thank goodness for movies.

The Seventh Veil is one of those noir-ish films that requires a total suspension of modern (dis)belief but is, after that, irresistible and engrossing . It has Ann Todd and James Mason with a lovely turn by the always wonderful (if occasionally absurd) Herbert Lom as a psychiatrist. She plays a world-class pianist who has attempted suicide when the film opens. Unfortunately the script's solution for her troubles is the love of a man - although it's not as if that wasn't and isn't the solution offered in many movies and novels. When the seventh veil covering her awareness is lifted - to employ the linguistic metaphor of the script - she is free to choose her partner - will it be her domineering guardian uncle (Mason) or her musician beau (Hugh McDermott) or the understanding doctor (Lom)?

I like a lot of the music in this movie - although I agree with the uncle that sometimes she plays slightly overblown and romantic pieces that are too pop and unctious for my taste. I especially like the first piano scene between Mason and Todd when he's playing the Mozart 3rd piano sonata - the one all students, me included, play until the cows come home - and she cannot stop herself from joining the fun. It's a nice scene and a nice rendition of the piece.

Labels: movies, music, today's movie

I can't believe it's August already. It's beautifully sunny today, too. (Uh-oh, might have to worry about drought now.) Have a great beginning of August day yourself.

Labels: weather