Untitled Post

There are a couple of tidbits over on TF.N about Star Wars Episode III: The Phantom Attack of the Menacing Clones. First is the item that there is apparently to be no location shooting at all on Episode III. So all the “planetside” shots will be digital, except for those shots already known to have been filmed during Attack of the Clones shooting, a couple of years ago. Second, it appears that a long-lived rumor — that footage of Natalie Portman has been shot for later insertion into even-more-Special-Editions of the original trilogy — is, in fact, not the case. I can deal with that.

And finally there’s this intriguing item: “Color and darkness will be emphasized in the film. Rick McCallum says it will mimic paintings by Mark Rothko.” I assume this refers to the film’s visual look, as opposed to its story, but George Lucas is a very visually-oriented storyteller, so this may be kind of important. I found this gallery of Rothko’s work yesterday. I am unfamiliar with him, but it appears that his work features bold colors with a lot of contrast. Episode III would seem, then, to have a look of its own, different from the initial “naturalistic” look of A New Hope (which gives way halfway through the film as technology takes over the story).

Finally, in news items thus far regarding Episode III, Jonathan Hales — Lucas’s co-writer for Attack of the Clones — has not been mentioned. I wonder if Lucas again did the script all by himself. I rather hope not, since as much as I love Lucas and Star Wars the guy has always needed help in the dialog department. We’ll see. (I was also surprised to learn that the current draft of the script is only 102 pages, but this might not be that indicative of anything.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

A sign that I’ve been reading too much political stuff lately: this morning, one of MSN’s headlines referenced “Tropical Storm Bill”. I read this and immediately thought this was a piece of legislation.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Matthew Yglesias is posting intermittently right now (boo) because he’s spending something like three weeks traveling in Europe (hiss). But today he’s got something of a Summer Reading List up, although it’s not so much a list. Anyway, I hadn’t thought of posting a reading list because I rarely know more than a book or two in advance of what I’m planning to read.

For instance, I may have a stack of epic fantasy novels to get through, but then I might decide after reading the first one that I’m really in the mood for something else when I’m done. Every volume of George R. R. Martin’s Song of Ice and Fire series has had this effect thus far: those books are so densely plotted and intricate that each time I finish one, quite frankly the last thing I want is to read another epic fantasy, or even any kind of fantasy at all.

And then there are the time when I’ll encounter a book that’s so good that the next book on The Reading List is, well, pretty screwed unless it’s literally Shakespeare or Steinbeck or some such literary giant. I remember when I tried reading Tad Williams’s The Dragonbone Chair immediately after finishing Guy Gavriel Kay’s Tigana, which did Williams’s book no favors (and Tigana is not even my favorite of GGK’s novels!). I waited a year to tackle Williams again, and finally found that it actually was a pretty damn good book, if a bit bloated. A really good book can send me into something of a “reading funk” after I finish it. Last time this happened was Michael Chabon’s The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Klay, a year ago.

As for nonfiction, I’m even more all over the map than in my fiction reading. I’ll wander through the library and say, “Holy crap, that sounds interesting!”, and under my arm the book goes. And that’s not even mentioning the immense number of books I personally own. About the only nonfiction books that I know I plan to read in the near future are Hillary Clinton’s new book and The Clinton Wars by Sidney Blumenthal (thus indulging my double-fascination with Presidential stuff in general and Clinton stuff in particular).

Even my approach to my recent Short Fiction Month was random and scattershot. Generally, my reading tends to err on the side of “I wanna read that!”, with occasional pangs of guilt that “I oughta read that”. But luckily for me (or not; the jury’s still out), I’ve become quite good at pushing guilt out of my mind.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

I don’t know if I’ll ever be able to decide which Hepburn is my favorite — Katherine or Audrey — but I guess it doesn’t really matter, does it? My favorite Katherine Hepburn film is The African Queen, and my favorite scene is where Charlie Allnut (Humphrey Bogart) gets up one morning after really tying one on the night before, sits up, blinks…and sees Rose Sayer (Hepburn) sitting at the back of the boat, in all her proper British splendor, her parasol in one hand and Charlie’s last bottles of liquor in the other as, one by one, she pours their contents into the river.

The first Katherine Hepburn film I ever saw was On Golden Pond:

About thirty years separate the two films. If that’s not “aging gracefully”, I don’t know what is.

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Well, I think that Rachel Lucas has finally lost me. I had seen her as a thoughtful and entertaining right-wing blogger, but after this half-baked “Fisking” of a Bill Clinton speech, I just think she’s descended into self-parody. It’s not worth a point-by-point rebuttal, but she does say something that I found staggering in its sheer lunacy — particularly to see it coming from a person who has made a big deal of the fact that she’s a history student:

Seriously, does anyone care what Hitler’s “root causes” were? I didn’t think so. Schmoot schmauses.

Amazing, utterly amazing. The study of history is, in large part, precisely the study of “root causes”, the idea being that maybe if we identify the forces that led to certain events or to certain people rising to power, maybe we’ll be able to identify those forces again in our own time. So yes, I suspect that Hitler’s “root causes” are, in fact, quite relevant: just what led an entire nation to turn over its reins of power to a person like that? Why would they do so? Are there any such instances transpiring today? What role did the punitive nature of the Treaty of Versailles play in the rise of Naziism? And so forth. I don’t understand why bitching about “root causes” is such a shibboleth on the right these days, but for a person like Rachel — who is constantly patting herself on the back for her superior understanding and respect for history, in the face of all those dumb liberal students who don’t know nothin’ better — to make a statement like this is almost beyond my comprehension.

(Oh, and while I’m at it, Rachel tosses up a nice strawman in discussing Bill Clinton’s criticism of the Bush tax cut plan. Rachel seems to think that Clinton is complaining that anyone at all is getting a tax cut, so she boldly claims, “I’m gonna keep any ‘windfall’ I get”. Well, that’s very nice. Too bad that the actual Democratic complaint isn’t that you’re getting “any ‘windfall'”, Rachel, but that you’re not getting enough of one. I wish I could figure out just how right-wingers translate “We think the lower and middle classes should get more of the present tax cut than the extreme upper-class” into “We think nobody should get any tax cut at all”.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

Paul Riddell, who was one of my favorite regular reads before something (or a lot of somethings) went awry in his personal life and he decided to quit writing entirely, has returned to writing via blogging (or “live journaling”, as it were). He’s got a very narrow focus right now, which is fine by me; at least his tap hasn’t run completely dry, and I can still hold out hope that he’ll gradually recharge the batteries, re-find his Muse, and attain new heights of hilarity. (I don’t think any of his old columns are archived anywhere, else I would link them.)

Share This Post

Untitled Post

The daughter and I attended West Seneca’s annual “big parade” yesterday (there’s an official name for the weeklong festival, but I don’t remember it just now). It was just about the same line-up as always: a procession of old cars, some fire trucks, a few bands and bagpipe corps, et cetera. There were two groups of dancing young girls, the second of which seemed comprised of six-year olds, whose dance-steps creeped me out a bit. The whole thing was closed off by another group of fire trucks, this time the really huge ones with the sirens that redefine “deafening” when you’re within twenty-feet of them. My daughter was excited that some of the participants were throwing candy, of course. She didn’t get much, since the bigger kids get to it all first, but she got a few items. One thing that always surprises me is that Smarties, when hurled twenty or more feet onto concrete, don’t shatter. Weird.

There was a moment that I figured SDB would appreciate: a group of former Marines marched (ten of them, about) with two current Marines with them. The group stopped right in front of us for a moment, one of those stoppages that happens in the course of parades, during which the old veterans clustered around the two younger guys, admiring their Marine-issue cargo pants. I couldn’t hear the entire conversation, but the younger guys were describing the items that could fit in the cargo pockets and how convenient they are when crawling through muck and whatever it is Marines have to crawl through at times. SDB writes a lot about military stuff, so how about a post or two on military fatigues?

(Oh, and the four little boys on the curb in front of us learned a valuable lesson just then. One of them yelled out to those Marines: “Hey, Army guys!” You never saw a dozen scowling faces whip around that fast….)

Share This Post