Ginger's follies, foibles and fixations.
|
|
| You Listen to Me, Mr. Kick-Ass Ginger's follies, foibles and fixations. |
|
|
Friday, February 21, 2003 Overheard at Movie Theater Guy: Two for "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days." [pause] Or, how to lose your dignity in 10 seconds. posted by Ginger | 3:59 PM The "I'd better do it now before it's Friday again" Friday Five! 1. What is your most prized material possession? Um... er... I'm not good at playing favorites with stuff. I suppose my photographs -- though that's not "a thing," as a whole they are hold many memories and are not replaceable. 2. What item, that you currently own, have you had the longest? That I own or that I have with me? I'm going to choose the former and say a toy safe that I've had since about age 6 or so. I still remember the combination and I've always put what I consider my "most important" posessions in there - at least those that will fit. It's currently at my mom & stepdad's house, and I have some pretty wacky stuff in there. How wacky? Well, how about a lock of hair from my high-school ex-boyfriend who later died in a car accident? Yeesh. 3. Are you a packrat? Oh my yes. That makes living in NYC especially difficult. 4. Do you prefer a spic-and-span clean house? Or is some clutter necessary to avoid the appearance of a museum? I prefer a clean house, though I agree that a little clutter is nice for that lived-in look. I don't seem to have any problem cultivating enough clutter. 5. Do the rooms in your house have a theme? Or is it a mixture of knick-knacks here and there? What "rooms"? The themes are "bathroom," "kitchen," and "all-purpose-living/sleeping-area." I do try to keep to a color scheme in each room though. The bathroom is pink and black, the kitchen is green, the all-purpose-living-sleeping-area has sort of a peach and blue thing going on. I don't know that I have many "knick-knacks" per se, though I still have a few lingering Star Wars toys. posted by Ginger | 11:33 AM Two, two, two wars in one! U.S. Combat Force of 1,700 Is Headed to the Philippines posted by Ginger | 11:16 AM Thursday, February 20, 2003 Oh, if only... I wouldn't have minded getting dumped before Valentine's Day if it were like this. posted by Ginger | 3:19 PM Premptive Strikes at Home From a series of articles in The Observer by ex-Monty Pythonite, Terry Jones: For some time now I've been really pissed off with Mr Johnson, who lives a couple of doors down the street. Well, him and Mr Patel, who runs the health food shop. They both give me queer looks, and I'm sure Mr Johnson is planning something nasty for me, but so far I haven't been able to discover what. The argument, such as it is, is oversimplified but it's darn funny... (Thanks to DW!) ...and while we're perusing the everso refreshingly literate Brit press, here's a speech by Tony Blair (thanks to Mike!): If there are 500,000 on the [Stop the War] march, that is still less than the number of people whose deaths Saddam has been responsible for. If there are one million, that is still less than the number of people who died in the wars he started. ...which is indeed a compelling argument, but it's not the right one. [Update 2-21-03: Or, what I should say is that this is in fact the only right argument, but I don't believe that anyone in any real power -- particularly the U.S. Administration, is really motivated by human-rights abuses in Iraq. Or anywhere, for that matter. Our own treatment of questionably-detained foreign-born peoples because of shifty eyes or one-way plane tickets is proof of that...] Nobody (at least not me) disputes that Saddam is better out than in. But to claim that this is the primary reason the US is in a froth to go into Iraq is disingenuous. If the Bush administration's motives are all for the good of the Iraqi people, why is the plan to unseat Saddam alone, and not the oppressive military regime?: The government of the United States is about to betray, as it has done so many times in the past, those core human values of self-determination and individual liberty. Perhaps Tony Blair is truly motivated by the potential to improve the lives of Iraqi civilians (he does have a Clintonian sincerity, doesn't he?), but it's not the Bush administration's. Otherwise, why would we have put up with Saddam's tyranny for so long? Why is he using the smokescreen of unsubstantiated threats against the U.S.? Of all the horrid tyrants in the world with weapons of mass destruction, why Saddam, and why now? Here's one idea (courtesy of MISC): So why then? We start with the reasoning of the hawks. They believe that the world position of the United States has been steadily declining since at least the Vietnam War. They believe that the basic explanation for this decline is the fact that U.S. governments have been weak and vacillating in their world policies. (They believe this is even true of the Reagan administration, although they do not dare to say this aloud.) They see a remedy, a simple remedy. The U.S. must assert itself forcefully and demonstrate its iron will and its overwhelming military superiority. Once that is done, the rest of the world will recognize and accept U.S. primacy in everything. The Europeans will fall into line. The potential nuclear powers will abandon their projects. The U.S. dollar will once again rise supreme. The Islamic fundamentalists will fade away or be crushed. And we shall enter into a new era of prosperity and high profit. posted by Ginger | 2:41 PM Well, someone has to sit around and watch movies... Not three weeks in NYC and my little sister has gotten two jobs, found two places to live, and has been cast in two musicals. That's more than I've done in a year and a half. Yay, Melanie! posted by Ginger | 12:05 PM Wednesday, February 19, 2003 I Got 12 out of 16 Despot or Sexpot? posted by Ginger | 8:12 PM Is this a joke? Mr. Bush said his overriding goal was to protect the American people and that leadership sometimes involved bucking public opinion. (emphasis added). Are we, as a people, really stupid enough to believe this? Can someone explain to me how, exactly, going to war with Iraq "protects" the American people? And, if that is really Bush's "overriding goal," why he doesn't focus on more pressing threats to public health and welfare, such as poverty and pollution? Needless to say, that's a rhetorical question. ...but don't worry, Bert the Turtle will help us stay safe! But Mr. Blair said the world should also listen to the voices of Iraqi exiles, who, he said, have made a case that Saddam Hussein's government is "one of the most barbarous and detestable regimes in modern political history." So Bush not only wants to protect his own threatened people, but the oppressed citizens of Iraq? What a humanitarian! Or maybe, just maybe, it's a rationalization that goes down easy: The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials The perspective of a former Pentagon Middle-East policy-planner: We ultimately brought 17 Iraqi opposition leaders to the Pentagon in April 1991 when no one else in this government at any level, office, or position in either the executive or legislative branches was willing to hear their reasonable pleas and requests for nominal support to overthrow or at least undermine the Ba'athist regime. With that backdrop, it is now extraordinarily uncomfortable and disconcerting more than a decade later to hear Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, rally the "hounds of war" now when he personally was too distracted and disinterested as the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy then to meet with the opposition leaders. So the question is, what is the real reason the Bush admn. is so hot for war? I'm listening... posted by Ginger | 6:55 PM Tuesday, February 18, 2003 It is still snowing! I made it to work today. I could have with some effort yesterday, but being the holiday and blizzarding, it made more sense to stay home, do my dishes, knit and watch DVDs (yay for my resurrected player; The Good Girl is good). Last night they finally shoveled the walk around my building. Looks like they may have to do it again if these keeps up, but at least getting to work wasn't TOO treacherous. The subway stairs are sure scary though - someone has got to figure out how to keep those clear. The snow reminds me of childhood back in Nebraska. It seems it hasn't snowed like this in many years, and I love it! If I was a driver I wouldn't, but I'm not, so - Yay! Just another reminder how much I prefer winter to summer. In winter (if you're lucky enough to have a home) you can keep warm inside and drink tea. In summer there's just no way to get around how miserable it is. I'd rather have half a year of this sort of weather than half a year of 90 degrees and humidity - blech. Had a dream last night that I was making out with Jack White from the White Stripes and at one point he removed his head and put it on the night table. That was a little disconcerting. OK, back to work... posted by Ginger | 11:26 AM Monday, February 17, 2003 What He Said This Senate Floor speech by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) on Feb. 12 is quickly becoming stuff of Internet legend. I had to track down his website to make sure it wasn't being misquoted in the telephone-like game of reprinting on various progressive websites. But it's the real deal, and says everything I wanted to say far better than I ever could. Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing. posted by Ginger | 10:14 AM Wow. I almost mentioned this last night as I blogged, but I thought, y'know: big deal, snow, whatever. I woke up this morning to a genuine blizzard. It is still coming down pretty hard, and that combined with the wind blowing around the fallen snow makes for periods of total white-out. Cool!! I'm not sure whether to go to work today. I probably wouldn't have trouble getting there aside from an uncomfortable walk to and from the subway. But I don't really know how snow affects things around here. If I'm going to end up stuck somewhere, I'd rather it be here. Maybe I should just take today off and get shit done around the house, and say I'll work this Friday (my usual day off). Hmm. posted by Ginger | 9:37 AM Sunday, February 16, 2003 Resurrection Thanks to Dad's suggestion, I re-set my DVD player by unplugging it for a while, and not only did I manage to remove my trapped Mr. Show DVD, I took a chance and was able to play Y Tu Mama Tambien without a hitch. So I'll save the money for now, and hope that this was just a case of the vapors rather than a full-on death-rattle. In the meantime, feel free to send me any DVD player recommendations you may have (esp. if your preferred player has worked well for more than 18 months...) posted by Ginger | 11:02 PM Okay, forget the war for a minute. What about the OscarsTM?! March 23 is my Superbowl, and every year it is my great pleasure (though perhaps not yours) to indulge in my version of Entertainment Weekly fantasy-camp and write up my own OscarTM predictions. Last year my February guesses turned out to be more accurate than my last-minute picks, so we'll see how things turn out this year. The only category in which I've seen all of the nominated films is (naturally...I'm such the nerd) Visual Effects. So I'll start with that one: Visual Effects Will win: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Should win: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers Ha ha, thought I'd say Star Wars, didn't ya? Nope. No matter what technical triumphs George and his minions trot out, they do no service to the "story" (I use the term loosely) that they ostensibly support. LOTR's living, breathing, tortured Gollum by himself should earn a win for LOTR (when are they going to add that "Virtual Performance" acting category?), but combined with walking trees and jaw-dropping hordes of Uruk-hai, it's no contest. Now, on with the FUN categories. Picture Will win: Chicago Should win: Chicago From what I have heard, everyone who has seen this movie adores it. And nothing cheers up a broke and frightened populace than a razzle-dazzle musical with just the right touch of cynicism. Who can blame them? (I haven't seen nominees The Hours or The Pianist) Direction Will win: Rob Marshall Should win: Rob Marshall I do not think this will be one of those years where the Picture and Director get split up. Voters seduced by Chicago's charms will be likely to vote down the line. But if the Academy decides Rob Marshall should work a little harder for his award, then Martin Scorsese has a chance at the consolation-prize OscarTM in honor more of his previous work than the good but sprawling Gangs. Roman Polanski also has a shot at the sympathy vote because he's a long-respected (except for that whole statutory-rape thing) director offering a harrowing and personal story. And The Holocaust, flip and insensitive as this may be, sure does collect dem OscarsTM. I'm happy for Almodovar, but I think he squeezed in because everyone plans to vote for Peter Jackson next year. Stephen Daldry, too, feels like a dark horse to me, as The Hours has been criticized by more than a few as feeling flat and manipulative. (haven't seen: Talk to Her, The Hours, The Pianist) Actor Will win: Jack Nicholson Should win: No idea yet Again, going with the popular favorite. Voters seem to love giving Jack Nicholson OscarsTM, especially when he seems to be playing something other than JackTM. Reports are that this is a lovely, nuanced performance, and who am I to argue? Nicolas Cage was marvelously sweaty, smarmy and pathetic as the Kaufman brothers but OscarTM voters may get too distracted by the troublesome ending (not to mention Chris Cooper's knockout performance) to give him the gold. Besides, Nic's winning role in Leaving Las Vegas was better than this. I'm going to guess that a limited audience for American will hinder Michael Caine's chances, and Adrien Brody's youth will hinder his (though I think he may have the biggest shot after Nicholson). Daniel Day-Lewis was amazing, as always, and voters may want to reward him for coming back to acting for a minute. But his Gangs baddie might strike people (wrongly) as too cartoonish. (haven't seen: About Schmidt, The Quiet American, The Pianist) Actress Will win: Julianne Moore Should win: Diane Lane These are just wild guesses. I picked Nicole Kidman as a shoo-in last year and we all know how that went (thus I'm steering clear of Renee Zellweger this year). I almost put Kidman down as the winner again--considering that a lot of people feel she's earned it--but something about how all the articles I read about The Hours rave more about her prosthetic nose than her acting gives me pause. The oft-nominated Moore, on the other hand, has received nothing but glowing praise for Heaven, and her supporting nomination indicates that this could be her year. But I suppose the double-nom could split the vote, too, which would favor Nicole. It's neck-and-neck between the two, really. Salma Hayek did remind us all how lucky we are that Madonna and J.Lo never got their Frida projects off the ground, but I don't think the movie was popular enough, or her performance powerful enough, to sway voters. As for Diane Lane, I haven't seen Unfaithful yet, but I rooted for her in The Perfect Storm, and I just think it would be neat if she was the surprise win. I have a block against loving Julianne Moore for some reason. Trivia: I heard from someone-who-knows-someone-who-knew-Julianne-way-back-when that her real name is Julie Smith and she's got mousy-brown hair. But I dunno, her downstairs bits in Short Cuts looked pretty red to me… (haven't seen: Far from Heaven, The Hours, Unfaithful) Supporting Actor Will win: John C. Reilly (or Paul Newman) Should win: John C. Reilly (or Chris Cooper) This is another tough one. I always expect the Academy to hand out the "beloved old guy" OscarTM at every opportunity, but I've been wrong before. Road seemed to kind of disappear from screens without a huge impact, which might be enough to subvert Paul Newman's status as one of the most popular actors on the planet. Surely he can win for something else? That John C. Reilly is also much-beloved, and overdue for recognition, and was heartbreakingly perfect in his role, makes him a serious contender -- especially if those voters really do close their eyes and vote Chicago down the line. I'm going to give Reilly the edge as part of the Chicago juggernaut. Chris Cooper, on the other hand, benefits from being the best thing about the most talked-about movie of the year. Ed Harris, despite an Oscar-bait role in an Oscar-bait film, doesn't seem likely to break his also-ran streak this time around. And though everyone loves Christopher Walken, the paltry two nominations for Catch Me makes him the dark horse. (haven't seen: Road to Perdition, The Hours, Catch Me If You Can) Supporting Actress Will win: Catherine Zeta-Jones Should win: Catherine Zeta-Jones Being, without question, the best thing about everyone's favorite movie of the year can't hurt. (haven't seen: About Schmidt, The Hours) Screenplay (Original) Will win: Far From Heaven Should win: Dunno Unless the Academy feels obligated to award the year's fizziest and most profitable movie with a statue, I'm going to assume that the most respectable film of the bunch will come out ahead. Gangs appears to have been written by committee, yet remains admirably coherent, which could give it a shot. That both of the other two nominees are foreign should warn us that letting focus groups, corporate sponsors and marketing departments write our films may not be such a great thing. Though I adored Y Tu Mama Tambien, too many people seem to think it's just a sexy road movie. (haven't seen: Talk to Her, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, Far From Heaven) Screenplay (Adaptation) Will win: Chicago Should win: Adaptation When the name of the category matches the name of the film, it just seems right, plus it would be like so totally meta. But alas, after Memento and Being John Malkovich both failed to collect much-deserved writing OscarsTM, I don't have much faith in voters knowing a good script if it bit them on the ass. And to be fair, adapting a stagy musical into a story you could get lost in takes some heavy lifting – which Chicago's scribe managed, making it look effortless. (haven't seen: The Hours, The Pianist) posted by Ginger | 9:49 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
||||
|
|||||
