Month: May 2004

Uh hmm. Finished reading Entertainment Weekly – pretty good issue. I want so much to dislike anything about the new movie, “Day After Tomorrow” (anything depicting the destruction of my hometown has earned my ire of late the last couple of years), but there’s enough reporting that “Day After Tomorrow” is more cheese and camp than any attempt at Serious Moral Story ™ (I’m weary of listening to the director telling news folks that he’s hoping the movie would make us think more about global warming – there are other ways to do that than with a cheesy movie). I loved this odd paragraph in Entertainment Weekly’s article on “Day After Tomorrow”; writer Gillian Flynn notes:

[T]he film demands not just killer tornadoes and instafreeze hurricanes, not just a storm swell that swallows much of Manhattan, but [a] freighter busting down Fifth Avenue in the wake of a wave the size of the Statue of Liberty. And wolves – did we mention wolves? Their furry animatronic heads loll on a lunch table nearby for a scene in which Sam [played by actor Jake Gyllenhaal], after scrounging food and medicine from the ship, must outrun the pack back to his [NY Public Library] safe house.

Hehehe. Wolves. Hell, I didn’t even knew there were wolves in the five boroughs. Anyway, what is with this movie? If someone sees it, let me know – in the meantime, I’ll watch other stuff. I mean, I like cheesy movies as much as anyone, but disaster movies that are Really Ridiculous just… well, there are other movies out there to watch.

My e-mail inbox had the latest ABA E-Journal newsletter – and an article highlights a reality show where law graduates compete for a job in a (gasp!) law firm. Molly McDonough writes:

After all, as recent grads who passed the bar after April 2003, they are qualified to try out for the show. These would-be contestants are vying to be picked for mock trial teams of Ivy Leaguers versus graduates of lower-tier schools. And they are lured by the prospect of fame and a “major career opportunity.”

Fox announced last week that the program, developing under the working title The Legal Show, is scheduled to air on Sundays beginning in November. The “courtroom showdowns” will take place in front of a yet-to-be-revealed high-profile judge, real jurors (except for the pay) and a national television audience.

Few details have emerged about the show, such as which law firm or company would be willing to turn over a coveted legal job to a game-show contestant.

Career opportunity? From a reality show? And, what law firm is agreeing to be a part of this? (maybe they’ll get something out of this, but maintaining their good reputation is the hard part). Top tier vs. lower tier law schools? Good grief, now that’s just mean (watch the lower tier grads cream the higher tier ones with the skills they acquired from their law schools’ clinics; watch the higher tier kids’ get all arrogant about their higher tier schools; blah, blah, blah). Plus, any concern of embarrassment isn’t there: one law graduate/unemployed gentleman notes, “‘If we could survive law school, we could survive a reality show.’” Yeah, sure. Do we really have to present our profession to the lay people like this? I thought we’re trying to improve the perception of and appreciation for lawyers, not make us look sillier.

Cool stuff: analysis of how television affects or reflects society can be scholarly stuff, as seen in the upcoming conference of “Buffy”-ologists – academians who have analyzed implications of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” and her universe (which would cover “Angel”). The Yahoo article links to the related website, which was also fascinating. And, yep, as I suspected, someone did get around to drafting a paper on how “Angel” depicts the Evil Law Firm as it violates codes of professional conduct. Too cool.

Enjoy the weekend. Here comes the unofficial beginning of summer (but I wish spring would stick around as long as it can).

This is just plain freaky. Saturday/Sunday was summery. Today is April weather – in the 50 to 60 degree range, partly cloudy/drizzly/increasingly overcast/expected hail/thunderstorm/etc. Huh? Where oh where is spring?

I got around to finally watching an entire “24” episode last night – wow, that’s quite a season finale. I kept thinking, “No way is Kiefer Sutherland going to do that. No way… Holy s—, he’s going to do it…”

Spoiler —

Kiefer as Federal Agent Jack Bauer is trying to stop germ warfare bomb from blowing up; but, his partner/protoge Chase is attached to the bomb – Chase locked the bomb onto his wrist to prevent the Nasty Villain from taking off with the bomb; poor Chase. Jack glances at the fire extinguisher/fire axe combo at the corner – and one wonders, No, Jack, no! Chase, though, is a Good American – tells Jack to do his duty. So, one gasps as Jack runs to break the glass to get the axe…

Somehow Jack saves the day, even if it means chopping someone’s wrist off. Chase, I think, will live and those snazzy doctors may be able to reattach his arm. But how many really crappy 24 hours can one agent have? Jack seems to have one almost every year.

I was generally squeamish about the biological terrorism storyline of this season’s “24” (enough to only follow it from commercials or TV Guide summaries) – but watching the last two episodes have been very impressive. “24” is pretty solid, even if it has some overwrought moments.

Slate.com’s Dahlia Lithwick – the woman’s one smart cookie and I so enjoy it when she writes Slate.com’s “Jurisprudence” column. Last week she did “Slippery Slope,” slamming the slippery slope argument against gay marriage (i.e., the argument that proposes that gay marriage paves the way to bestiality, incest, and other sins – as if any “sin” is very similar). Putting aside whether one is for or against gay marriage, one must reasonably expect proper development of legal argument – and slippery slope arguments are not exactly the best one, as law school has taught us, and I really liked how Lithwick nailed the argument as a specious one (if not, at least a boring argument).

This week, Lithwick analyzes why Justice Sandra Day O’Connor bemuses us – very interesting reading, as we continue the struggle to understand the justices in Supreme Court.

Interesting NY Times’ editorial – I always perk up a little when the Times does a human interest type of editorial: “Merry Times for Commoners.” The editorial board notes that this month has been the month of the weddings of the Crown Princes of Europe – Prince Frederik of Denmark marrying an Australian commoner; and this past weekend, Prince Felipe of Spain marrying a Spanish anchorwoman/commoner/divorcee. (sidenote: yep, on Saturday, even I was watching a little bit of the Felipe/Letizia wedding on Spanish TV – I don’t understand a word of Spanish, but I’m transfixed as anyone with a nice old-fashioned royal wedding; and, more yep, ladies – let us all bow our heads that the previously most eligible bachelors of royal Europe are no longer eligible). The editorial’s odd humor (odd, because I didn’t think this was really in the Times’ editorial bunch):

English tabloids would have enjoyed imagining that conversation over tapas in the royal palace, “Mom, Dad, there is something you need to know about Letizia. . . .” But this was Spain, not England, and the royal family is no subject for mockery.

Indeed, far from a national ornament, the father of the groom, King Juan Carlos, is widely admired for his forceful oversight of Spain’s transition to democracy. And though the ceremony was toned down in remembrance of the March 11 terrorist attacks in Madrid, it was watched by millions of former subjects throughout Latin America, whose fascination for Spanish royalty is not unlike Americans’ interest in the Windsor clan.

Above all, these May royal weddings are a tantalizing form of reality TV. It’s no longer about evoking fantasies of being born a prince or a princess. All aspiring contestants need to do is go out and woo one.

Umm hmm. The Times gettin’ with the times, I guess. Personally, I think royal weddings are better than so-called reality tv; we may not expect to marry ourselves to princes or princesses, but as national figures, they mean something (at least, to Spain or Denmark, they do).

Fantasia Barrino – the new American Idol. Too predictable; Diana Degarmo got weak there with two of her songs and so it was clear who would be the winner, short of America’s bad voting conduct. Ah, well. Congrats to the winner and the runner-up; So goes spring tv.

Yahoo! News – Gum Returns to Singapore After 12 Years

To think that we have prescription drug problems — because the US badgered Singapore about it during a free trade agreement, now it will allow the sale of “therapeutic” gum — but the stuff costs $11 and it’s a controlled substance — you have to have your ID recorded before purchase. “Therapeutic” gums include Nicotine gum and “whitening” gums like Orbit. Critics on the one hand decry the increasing number of gum spots on the sidewalk, as well as the fact that it’s legal and cheaper there to get cigarettes and prostitutes without having your identity recorded.

Quest USA, Da Tiao Zhan – The First Chinese Reality TV Show in the US

Imagine four Chinese teams doing the Amazing Race, just on a smaller scale — from Boston to Miami… welcome to Quest USA. I’m just curious about how it will go and how much budget they put into this one.

See it at midnight ET Sunday/Monday on SinoVision or on the International Channel if you’re on Cablevision. Mandarin Chinese with English subtitles.

Ok, kinda neato….

But, I really hate the new font and look. Doesn’t work well with this kind of thing. Looks like Verdana-ish(?), which are normally ones that I like. But but, I dunno, can we change the font?

What’s this Advanced Editing thinggy here….. too good for me.

Now all we need is the ability to upload avatars :). Although loading pics… not necessarily a good thing due to anonymity.

=YC

Replying to SSW’s comments in Saturday in the Park with George [If you link to the article you’re commenting on in your article, you will automatically set up a cross-referrenced comment, so you don’t have to hit “Comment” anymore — and everyone should get notified about replies.] No, I didn’t know the difference between Manet (whom some call the father of the Modern movement) and Monet (what SSW said) before going to the museum. Turns out that Manet was initially pissed off at Monet because the art critics of the time couldn’t keep them straight, either. Then they met and actually really got along, often going out on painting expeditions together. The way the exhibit was set up at the Philly Museum of Art was well-thought out: the Manet at Sea pictures faced north-south in the center of the room, while contemporary seascapes were mounted east-west along the walls. That enabled the viewer to compare and contrast Manet’s work. The audio tour was informative and well done, also. Recommended (but it’s closing after next weekend)

Jim’s Steaks on South Street and 4th Avenue had a line going around the block, with the aroma of grilling beef and onions. They offer hogies also, but of course no one was even bothering with them. The succulent slices of beef are just too tempting. For some reason,. it does not translate well in New York, even though the cheesesteak trinity of Pat’s, Gino’s and Jim’s all make no secret of what’s in it. Slightly frozen rib eye is sliced on a deli slicer into paper-thin sheets. Onions are fried on a grill oiled with soybean oil. The sheets of steak are then grilled until they just turn brown, and then they are finely stir-chopped with the grill spatula until they are complete shredded. Take an Amato’s Bakery hero bread, and slice it down the middle. Jim’s innovation is to put the hot Cheese Whiz on the bread first, followed by the meat and the onions. Pat’s and Gino’s pack the steak in first, followed by the onions and the cheese. Jim’s ends up with the more structually sound product — the Whiz acts like mayo and keeps the bread from getting soggy, while at the same time prevents it from oozing around. You never have to take “the stance” with a Jim’s steak as you would with Pat’s — standing with feet spread and haunched over to prevent your shoes from being covered with Whiz and onions. Jim’s is recommended.

We had dinner at Joya on Court Street in Brooklyn that night. With the backyard open, seating wasn’t the problem that it usually is during the winter. The soft shell crab special was a delicate, wonderful dish, as well as the salmon summer rolls. Recommended.

In the Mood For Love, recommended. BAM Rose Cinema — I didn’t like it that much, though. Stadium seating, check. Big-ass cup holders, check. Rows wider than the screen — bad! If you were not straight on to the middle of the screen, you were at such an angle that it almost became an obstructed seat.

The next day I saw Shrek 2. Recommended. You would think that the commercials have given away the whole plot, but it actually doesn’t. I’d see it again to look for details I missed the first time — and there were lots. Try to see a digital showing if possible — there are really cute in-jokes that you have to keep a look out for.

The new Coney Island — Stillwell Avenue terminal is a vast improvement over the previous structure. It now looks something like an European train station with its arching roof. I like it. However, P–‘s sister’s boyfriend works for the MTA, and he says that it’s already leaking.

The title of today’s blog is something right out of today’s “Daily News” (NY’s hometown paper), wherein the resident tv critic David Bianculli highlights the reality of American television next fall (or already in effect) . Some commentary off the top of my head:

“Alias” – I had taped the season finale last night, but watched the last half hour, and still don’t get it. What the heck happened? Jack Bristow telling his daughter Secret Agent Sydney (paraphrasing): “I never meant this for you…” What?! And, ABC announced that the next season won’t be until January 2005?! What?! Being a lawyer, I can figure out the arguments about this decision –

Pro:
– ABC will show all 22 episodes without reruns interrupting, from January to May.
– By buying time for the writers, maybe the writers can write up some smoother and better storylines.

Con:
– We have to wait until January?!
– I personally don’t mind reruns – it’s a way to catch up on the episodes missed. I mean, I know that the age of DVD’s means no one has to watch reruns unless he/she wants to, but being slightly-behind-the-technological times, I seriously do not mind reruns and I ain’t going to get the DVD’s very soon anyway.
– We have to wait until January?!

The reports on the upcoming NBC sitcom/”Friends” spinoff, “Joey,” sound very positive. But, keep in mind – “Joey” is looking like the only new sitcom coming up this season. Eh? Are sitcoms doomed? All the media hype bemoaning sitcoms’ end – from Entertainment Weekly’s roundtable discussion to every tv critic column I came across. And, of course, the reality show dominance – the benefit of being cheap (no need to pay for writers; no hand-wringling over plots when it’s all a matter of throwing disparate personalities together; and no need to cast actual actors); easily made (cameras rolling…); and rendering every viewer a sucker by sucking him/her into the storylines/conflict/gameshow winner.

Watching the “Simpsons” last night would suggest that the sitcom isn’t completely doomed, or at least if you go by the NY Times’ article about it. Gosh, the article was spoilers galore about the episode, but analyzed how such a cartoon/sitcom is written out and utterly dedicated to the idea of making a viewer laugh – what a lot of so-called sitcoms don’t do enough of (say goodbye to “I’m with Her”; “Married to the Kellys,” and the Jim Belushi show (I think) – sadly all on ABC, a show once known for decently silly sitcoms like “Three’s Company” What is the state of ABC? I don’t know).

On the bright side, “Arrested Development” will be back – an absurd show which is “they can’t do that, but they did” kind of funny (which, considering the time slot, I could never watch but always wanted to). On the negative side: there’s a whole load of “The Swan” and other dregs on in the meantime.

I wonder if the networks are putting themselves in a position set for failure – glutting the market with reality stuff (quite honestly, my life is reality, so why do I have to watch others’ so-called reality? TV’s my escapism, hello, Mr. Network Executive) – and what will happen the ratings won’t be there? Will the pendulum go the other way, to give us watchable dramas and comedies again? If so, when? (no, really, I want to know, because crappy syndicated television is hardly satisfying me – am I so desparate for non-reality tv that I’d watch “Andromeda”? Apparently – and that was a pretty lousy episode last weekend). Hmm. No wonder why I’ve been watching so much PBS lately. (well, not the “Colonial House” stuff – I haven’t watched since “Victorian House” – anything else would be almost derivative…) … More hmm. [better stop before I start sounding like Marge Simpson…]

For our members, I’ve upgraded the WordPress software (the one we’re using to blog) to the current version, 1.20 . I still have to tweak the template. The back end has a lot more features, including an improved editor and now you can upload pictures yourself. Explore and let me know what you think.