Month: April 2004

Shook hands with Ismail Merchant yesterday at my college’s alumni dinner near Grand Central. He actually was a MBA student, and was exposed to literature and film by osmosis. I have to be honest, I have never watched any of his films (I’m sure P– will fill me in on them and catch me up). However, I know about his Indian food – he’s a great chef and he is such a foodie, it is not funny. That is worthy of honor.

The college president reported publically for the first time that the that arms of the Mars explorers are made from steel taken from the WTC site. The college brokered the arrangement between NASA and the authorities here. I feel a whole array of emotions. Wow, that was am amazing, spectacular deal they pulled off that shows the college’s high guan-xi (connections) quotient. On the other hand, why does everyone want a piece of the wreckage? There is a thin line between memorial and morbidity.

I’m going to meet my friends from Newport Beach that are flying in on a 2 hour layover from London. Let’s see what kind of food I can find for them.

So, anyway, how’s that Beatles song go? “The Taxman… Ye-ah, the Taxman…”

Let’s look forward to the final run of new episodes on various channels:

This Wednesday’s “Angel” on the WB channel – sigh… I hate that the WB is going to cancel this show, which has certainly had a pretty good season this season (storywise, emotionally-wise, etc.). This week’s episode was unbelievable. Like, how many more people from Team Angel will fall on the sword and make a sacrifice? First Quinn back in Season 1; then Cordelia going to another dimension in Season 3, but coming back to wreck havoc in her possessed form (was she really possessed? Who possessed her? Hmm, no one really answered those questions) and she then fell into a coma only to permanently say goodbye to Team Angel this season; and then the very sad thing the writers did to Fred six weeks ago, as her body loses her soul which was replaced by Illyria, a former evil (? – amoral would be more accurate) goddess; and this week, Charles Gunn, who choses to remain in the alternate suburban hell dimension to atone for his part in losing Fred, who he once loved and may always love. Ack. And, this is the beginning of the end – 1 episode down, 5 left to go before saying goodbye to Angel? No fair!!! And, meanwhile, Angel realizes that it’s that time again – he has to fight the good fight – it’s the end of the universe (again) and he has got to be so tired of it.

Previews promise the return of Angel’s son (!) – mind you, Angel sacrificed his friends’ one-year’s worth of memories and free will so that Connor could have a normal life and peace of mind. How will Connor make his return? Will he still be irritating, self-righteous, hate-my-daddy-’cause-he-doesn’t-love-me-enough? Hmm. And, what about Wesley, the Englishman who hates himself more than anything else, because he lost the love(s) of his life in the past two years and surely has lost his mind? Hmm…

“Alias” – also going running down to its last few episodes of the season; ABC is hopefully going to renew it (considering what else does that network has to look forward to? A “Practice” spinoff; more “NYPD Blue” which is aging; and (ugh) more “Bachelor”?). Secret Agent Sydney and Crew are almost on to the traitor in their midst. Meanwhile, is The (usually) Evil Sloane really evil or is someone getting him into trouble? Will Sydney’s trecherous mom, the deceptive and evasive Irina, going to return? Will we ever get answers to any of the questions?

“The Practice” – coming to an end on ABC. How is it that they can make the remaining partners, Ellenor, Eugene, and Jimmy look both sympathetic, dignified, but dim-witted all at once? How is it that guest star William Shatner is playing a more wacky character than James Spader? How is it that James Spader’s Alan Shore character suddenly being the one with any moral high ground? He’s still a psychologically dubious character – he admittedly doesn’t know what he wants in his life, loves his dear friend Ellenor and enjoyed torturing the rest of the practice – but knows he can’t stay. So, what does he want and who the hell is he really? Will Alan Shore grow up already? Methinks that the James Spader-as-Alan Shore spinoff will be more Ally McBeal-esque rather than serious, in that David E. Kelley mode.

The final three episodes of “Friends.” I’m so bad; I keep missing the episodes. Then again, I keep watching the syndicated reruns, so I don’t feel that guilty. But, it’s going to feel weird to see no more “Friends.” What will NBC do? More “Average Joe”? Blech. Can’t they put “Scrubs” in a decent time slot so that I can actually watch a funny sitcom, instead of struggling to remember what time slot to program the VCR? “Scrubs” on NBC and “Arrested Development” on FOX deserve better treatment to let them develop as sitcoms and make us laugh.

“The Apprentice” last night – I do feel sorry that Kwame got the wrong end of the stick in the finals; his teammates did not make it easy for him (I mean, really, losing singer Jessica Simpson in Atlantic City? come on!), and as much as he didn’t like to micromanage, he should have done so when he had such flakes on his team (Troy and Omarosa didn’t make themselves look too bright in the last episode). Bill did all right, so he was the winner, even if his own team kind of undermined him too (they didn’t make themselves look that stupid at least). Donald Trump – well, let’s just say he does not make for a good post-game show host. Couldn’t they have gotten Jeff Probst (“Survivor”) or Bryant Gumbel or someone half-way more talented than Trump to ask the contestants follow up questions? Oh, well. It was a guilty-pleasure kind of show, thanks to the good-editing and showmanship efforts of producer Mark Burnett.

Enjoy the spring weekend…

One hopes that the rain in the NYC area means May flowers, or at least a nice upcoming weekend.

Movie recommendation: I saw “Ella Enchanted” on Sunday. It’s a nice, harmless PG film (PG due to some snarky moments), about Ella of Frell, a daughter of an impoverished aristocrat. Ella’s fairy godmother gave her the dumbest possible “gift” – the “gift” of “obedience.” Some obvious plot holes (i.e., doesn’t it occur to Ella that obedience can still be defined within reasonable grounds? Or is that me-the-lawyer talking?). But, a cute movie, as Ella allies herself with the elves, ogres, and giants to overcome her excessive obedience problem; rebel against the evil Sir Edgar, who segregated the enchanted kingdom in the name of the regency on behalf of his nephew, Prince Char (short for Charmant, which appears to be French for “Charming”); inspire Prince Char to become a good king; and, of course, fall in love with Prince Char, who’s smitten with the decidedly disobedient Ella.

(sidenote: elf was campaigning to the prince to let said elf go to law school, because it was discriminatory to prohibit elves from the practice of law and restrict them only to the entertainment business; nice idea).

Apparently, it’s not true to the original kids’ book (then again, how many movies are truly true to their original books?), but I never read the book so it’s not like I knew that. Kids in the audience (and there were many) enjoyed it for the funny moments; adults liked it because it was something to take the kids to see and star Anne Hathaway was a nice watch because you could watch and know she has star wattage. My friend and I particularly enjoyed Hugh Dancy (who has played Daniel Deronda in Masterpiece Theatre’s “Daniel Deronda”) as Prince Char (a.k.a., the obligatory cute English guy); i.e., the filmmakers knew full well that we the adult female audience love some charming male eye candy who also looks like he has a mind and soul; sigh…

A fun movie all in all. So, feel free to take your kids, your nieces and nephews, and even your significant other (presuming you don’t get jealous about her drooling over said cute English guy).

Some serious stuff:

– David Brooks in the NY Times poses a question – how do we cope in a world of uncertainty? Says Brooks:

“Facing such great uncertainties, [former Secretary of State George] Shultz continued, the president has to take extra care to prepare the electorate: ‘The public must understand before the fact that some will seek to cast any pre-emptive or retaliatory action by us in the worst light and will attempt to make our military and our policy makers — rather than the terrorists — appear to be the culprits. The public must understand before the fact that occasions will come when their government must act before each and every fact is known.’

“The Shultz speech [back in 1984] opened a rift within the Reagan administration. Shultz’s argument was that uncertainty forces us to be aggressive. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, on the other hand, argued that uncertainty should make us cautious. As one Weinberger aide told The Times, ‘The Pentagon is more aware of the downside of military operations and therefore is cautious about undertaking operations where the results are as unpredictable as in pre-emptive strikes against terrorists.’

“Shultz and Weinberger were clear and mature. Both understood there is no perfect answer to terror and both understood the downsides of their respective positions.”

Brooks posits that we’re surrounded by political leaders who want to be like Shultz but are “Weinbergerian” over the Iraq issue; politicians these days are not consistent, Brooks says. Brooks says that we’re not being educated by our leaders about what it means to live in uncertain times, and he closes: “When you read the Shultz speech, you get the impression the country is aging backward. Twenty years ago we had a leader who treated us like adults, mature enough to cope with harsh uncertainties. Now we’re talked to as if we’re children, which, if you look at the hypocrisy-laden terror debate, is about what we deserve.”

Hmm. I wonder if it’s not just hypocrisy but also because the leadership is no more certain than the rest of us. Which is scarier – hypocrisy or plain old ignorance (and, to go with ignorance, indecision about what to really do)?

– I’ve also been following these stories about Justice Scalia, his public speech, and his marshal, who confiscated tapes/recordings belonging to the press who were recording for purposes of reporting on his public speech. Slate.com’s Dahlia Lithwick asked and answered the question that occurred to me: who the heck are these marshals who are doing that and on what (legal) grounds did they think they were acting? I’m amazed that Scalia apologized – but then said that he had no power over the marshals. So, if he has no power over the US marshals, then what on earth made them decide to do what they did? And, he apparently planned to continue to prohibit the broadcast press to record him but let the press media record him for accuracy purposes (because he did not like incorrect attributions or misquotes) – but how can one have it both ways? I’m just not sure of what to make of it.

Fascinating story in NY Times on NY’s own Justice Ira Gammerman.

And, on the Asian-American front: a NY1 story on modern bhangra, traditional Indian music with a twist – some hip-hop and reggae. NY1 even profiles an Asian Indian female DJ who spins her modern bhangra at the local club scene. Sounds like a fun story.