WORTH NOTING PAGE 41
·
From
The Sopranos:
“Even a broken clock is right twice a day.”
·
On
Music’s inexplicable nature (Elvis Costello?):
“Writing about music is like dancing about
architecture.”
·
On
the manpower & resources dedicated to the Empire State Building
(William Starrett,
William
Starrett Construction; completed the Empire State in a record 18 mos.!)
“Building a
skyscraper is the peacetime equivalent of war.”
·
On
Sculpture & Architecture; from renowned 20th Century architect,
I.M. Pei
“Sculpture and Architecture are
related. Function is the only thing that
prevents an architect from
being a sculptor.”
·
On
addiction: An addict relies on a chemical to get rid of stress and
uncomfortable emotions. Pressure and
stress triggers an addict to use their drug of choice.
On
Impatience & Baseball, from SI p. 20 4/19/99 -- “Impatience
is a virtue in America, where even fast food isn’t fast enough. Americans once ate leisurely dinners but then
discovered TV dinners, and then McDonald’s, and then drive-through McDonald’s,
and finally the number-coded meal ordered through the drive-through window at
McDonald’s. The trouble with instant
gratification is that it takes too long, a notion best expressed by
comedian Steven Wright, who aspired to put instant coffee in the microwave oven
and actually go back in time.
Baseball introduced “Wait till next year” into the public
lexicon. But who has time to wait
anymore? In its account of a recent Cubs
victory, Associated Press declared, “Sammy Sosa remained homerless for the
season ...” It was only the Cub’s third game, but already Sosa was
consigned to a homerless shelter, hopelessly behind a record
pace. Perhaps that’s a blessing. If he or someone else take the nation on
another joyride this summer, it will be one
in which members of the media shout daily from the backseat,
“Are we there yet? Are we there yet?”
During the Yankees’ hopelessly shower-soaked home opener
last Friday, new Bombers TV analyst Tim McCarver suggested waiving the
mandatory 45-minute waiting period before a game can be called due to
rain. It was an outrageous
proposal. For years the only upside to
Braves games were the impromptu Sanford
and Son marathons shown during Biblicallty long rain delays on the
Superstation.
·
On
Size & Effectiveness, from Wendy Schaetzel Lesko, head of
the youth project Activism 2000, which encourages kids to participate in policy
making
“If
you ever think you’re too small to be effective, you’ve never been in bed with
a mosquito.”
·
Pomobabble:
The jargon of postmodernism, the intellectual movement that says truth doesn’t
exist and that all values and knowledge are “socially constructed” -- made up
to serve the interests of the powerful.
The obscurity of pomobabble “bullies the reader into granting that,
since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something
significant going on.”
WORTH NOTING PAGE 42
·
On
Movie Poster Design from Civilization, Popcorn
Psychology p. 35, April/May ‘99
Film advertisers will tell you that every poster has got to
have a gun or a naked woman on it -- period.
It’s not that simple according to John Fahy, Miramax’s creative director
and vice president of advertising, who says that least in the case of his
studio, each poster is intended to tell you something substantive about the
film it advertises. He notes that one of
the more subtle, but effective, techniques poster designers use in trying to
show what a film is about is to show its stars looking in a particular
direction or at something specific.
Horror movie posters, for example sometimes show actors looking off to
one side, or over their shoulders, practically inviting you to help search for
whatever’s about to get them. Not
surprisingly, a poster for a romantic film will often will often show its two leads looking into one another’s
eyes. Posters for films about loftier
subjects commonly show characters looking up and off in the distance, to let
you know they’re thinking about something really important. Lately, though, you may have noticed that
many posters at the multiplex show the stars looking somewhere else: right at
you. You’ll most often see this in
posters for films put out by the major Hollywood studios, but their smaller
competitors do it also -- as in the poster for Miramax’s romantic comedy She’s
All That, in which leading lady Rachel Leigh Cook stares straight ahead rather
than toward co-star Freddie Prinze, Jr.
According to Mary Corliss, curator if the film poster collection at the
Museum of Modern Art, this sort of thing was less common during Hollywood’s
so-called golden days of the 1930’s and 40’s.
Back then, a poster was supposed to show characters interacting with one
another, thereby conveying a sense of the film’s premise. And although studios were just as interested
as they are now in using stars to sell tickets, Corliss says poster designers
were less likely to show stars looking at their fans because the actors were
supposed to be larger than life -- aloof and unattainable. Now that we know everything about every
star’s personal affairs, those days are past, and this fact may be reflected in
today’s movie poster designs. Hollywood
actors now are just like us, or at least a little like us; perhaps film
advertisers are trying to lure us into the cinema by convincing us that we have
a personal link to the people we pay to watch.
In posters, stars still sell tickets, but differently than before: they
tell you very little about the movies they promote. They simply show actors and actresses eyeing
you so as to say, “Fork over for a ticket, and you get to spend two hours alone
with me, in the dark.”
·
Stanley
Kubrick on Schindler’s List: “That was about success, wasn’t it? The Holocaust is about six million people who
get killed. ‘Schindler’s List’ was about
six hundred people who don’t.”
·
I
think Life resembles Painting: Often
we try to improve the overall picture by dabbing in small strokes -- until the
whole thing is overworked, and the true colors of happiness are muddied. Sometimes it’s best to plunge a brush into the
paint, and change things with a broad stroke. Me
·
From
Psychedelic Furs’ The Ghost In Me:
But falling over you is the news of the day. Angels fall like rain. And love is all of
Heaven away.
·
Favorite
Line From The Sopranos (HBO series first season viewers poll):
“What?
No fuckin’ ziti?” -- Anthony Jr.
on seeing the table for a family party.
WORTH NOTING PAGE 43
·
On
Cape Cod:
A man may stand here and put all America behind him.
·
On
the assumed truth of the written word (from
Spencer’s Mountain, Henry Fonda)
“Just
because somethin’s wrote down, don’t make it so.” Clay Spencer
·
“Your
Name” (author unknown)
You
got it from your father
It was all he had to give
So it’s yours to cherish
For as long as you may live.
If you lose the watch he gave you
It can always be replaced.
But a black mark on your name,
Can never be erased.
It was clean the day you took it
And a worthy name to bear
When he got it from his father,
There was no dishonor there.
So make sure you guard it wisely,
After all is said and done
You’ll be glad the name is spotless
When you give it to your son.
·
Hollywood’s
Nastiest Insults
1.
“I knew her before she was a
virgin.” -- Groucho Marx on Doris Day
2.
“Lily Tomlin has been in and out of the
closet more times than my hunting jacket.”
--
Rock Hudson
3.
“I wouldn’t sit on her toilet.” --
Bette Davis on Joan Crawford
4.
“Marilyn Monroe was the original good
time had by all.” -- Bette Davis
5.
“Oh sorry, I thought you were a fellow
I knew.” -- Groucho Marx on Greta Garbo
·
Being a screenwriter in Hollywood is
like being a eunuch at an orgy.
--
Albert Brooks in “The Muse”
·
Honor modesty more than your life. -- Aeschylus
·
Teach us like men, treat us like women.
-- Mia Hamm to her national team skipper, Tony DiCicco
·
On
the differences of coaching women (Tony DiCicco)
“There are actually more
similarities than differences between men and women. Women demand to be trained hard but they
don’t like a coach to get in their face as a yelling, ranting, lunatic. They prefer more direction. One of the things that is most important to
women is relationships with one another.
This is not to say that men are some lesser level of Homo Sapiens but
with men it’s more like, ‘You can play a little bit so you can be on my team’,
but women can’t easily make that transfer. They will discount for relationships
more than anything else.
WORTH NOTING PAGE 44
·
On
the differences of coaching women cont’d: “Also, you have to talk to men players as
individuals, you can talk to women as a group because they internalize
everything. You can say to a group of
women, ‘We need to be fitter’, and each one thinks you’re talking about her, so
they work on it. With men, if you say
that, each one is thinking, “Yeah, I’m the only fit one on this team.’
Response to George Will’s column: “Who needs public
broadcasting?” (Richard Cohen 8/9/99 NYPost) “This
morning, as I have done almost every morning for the last 20 years, I switched
on the radio to listen to National Public Radio’s “Morning Edition” Later, if I
have time, I will listen to “All Things Considered” These are the two best news shows on the air
-- any air, radio or television -- and they are my answer to a headline The
Washington Post put on recent George
Will column: “Who needs Public
Broadcasting?” I do. Will, clearly does not. He says, as do others, that pubic
broadcasting is vaguely socialistic, not to mention redundant. The old network monopoly (ABC, CBS, NBC) is
gone. Now we have more networks and, of
course, cable -- 500 or so channels.
Anything done on public television can be found on cable. But not those two public radio shows. Nothing like them exists anywhere else. They are not on commercial radio and certainly
not on commercial television. You can
surf those mythical 500 channels until your remote control unit gives you
carpal tunnel syndrome and not find a commercial TV news program that comes
close, in quality or reach, to what is done daily by “Morning Edition” or “All
Things Considered.” By and large, TV
news is a joke. The network news shows
are now parodies of themselves -- anchors standing and anchors walking and
anchors pretending to bring you an in-depth report when, half the time, they
are rehashing that morning’s paper.
Compared to what they once were, these network news shows are to
journalism what burlesque was to theater.
Once-proud news organizations now report to accountants. Bureaus all over the world have been closed
and great reporters talk like boobs -- simple sentences, simple words: simply
awful. The public-radio shows -- and
PBS’s “News Hour with Jim Lehrer”-- are of a much higher quality. They retain an interest in foreign news which
the networks, short of war, mostly ignore.
These shows also cover America better than any newspaper I know, and
while they are just goofy about space shots, Antarctica and regional cooking
(Hi Linda), for public radio’s 29 million listeners, they help bind the
nation. They make us one community. This is important. If there is a single -- although unstated --
theme running through the Republican argument about why we deserve a tax break
($792 billion over the next 10 years), it’s that we don’t owe each other very
much. The GOP keeps saying the surplus
belongs to each of us -- not, mind you, all of us -- and we ought to get it
back. It’s all about the indiviual. It’s not about the collective. But the collective -- a fusty term from a
bygone era -- has certain legitimate demands.
For instance, it may be true that cable television has some dandy
programming for children. But “Sesame
Street” comes free, and free is all that some people can afford. In a different sphere, it may be true that
the national parks have been improved since fees were instituted, but some
people can’t afford those fees -- and the parks (or museums), by all rights,
ought to be theirs to enjoy as well.
With PBS, with the national parks, with a whole lot of programs, we are
not talking much money. (Public
broadcasting gets only 15 percent of its funds from the government
anyway.) But we are talking about the
public realm, of the use of government funds to perpetuate something that
otherwise would not exist. No cable
channel, no network -- no nobody -- is going to do what public broadcasting
does. Its market is too small, too old
-- to uninterested in buying an SUV when a mere car will do just fine, thank
you. I could live without most public
broadcasting -- even the classical music programs. But Scott Simon on Saturday, “Morning
Edition” and “All Things Considered” during the week -- these are essential
listening. I pay for them, contribute to
my public radio stations, but like that my government contributes, too.
WORTH NOTING PAGE 45
Response
to George Will’s column: “Who needs public broadcasting?” cont’d
Otherwise, sooner or later, public broadcasting --
like its commercial counterpart -- will be dumbed down. Already, PBS airs specials like Yanni’s “Live
at the Acropolis” that make you cringe.
In the search for scratch, public broadcasting will find virtue in
mediocrity. One morning, if
conservatives and the market have their way, I will wake to Howard Stern or
rip-n’read all-news radio or, maybe, someone making a salad on the “Today”
show. I’ll hear nothing from the Balkans
and nothing about culture and very little, even, about my own country. I’ll crave radio reporting that sometimes has
me sitting in the car, motor idling, afraid I’ll miss something precious just
by running into the house. Who needs
public broadcasting? We all do.
·
On the insecurity of artists
Asking
someone if they like your painting is pretty much the same as asking if they
like you. Me
·
On
Focus Groups: from Civilization, Oct./Nov. ‘99 In Defense of Focus Groups p. 33
These
days, films, novels and musicians’ lyrics (as well as their looks) aren’t
finalized until a group of “average age” citizens has had its say. Has the reliance on focus groups compromised
art? We asked two men familiar with the
process: Bill Weylock, a former president of the Qualitative Research
Consultants Association who has led focus groups for NBC and Nickelodeon, and
Tony Kaye, who built his reputation shooting ads for the likes of Volvo and
Reebock -- and who publicly clashed with New Line Cinema over creative control
of his film debut, American History X.
Civilization: Author
James Patterson changed the ending of a recent novel because it tested
poorly. Are there limits to the power of
the focus group?
Tony Kaye: To take the advice of many and have the
privilege to decide on your own -- I don’t find anything wrong with that. However, it’s totally inappropriate if a
publisher puts a novelist’s work in front of a focus group and then, based on
the results, decides to tell the novelist to make a change.
Bill Weylock: I
compare Patterson’s decision to the staged reading of a new play, when the
playwright wants to hear his words in the air instead of being trapped in his
head. Focus group respondents are not
there to collaborate on the creation; they’re there to explain their response
to the creation so the creator can fine-tune.
Civ: Maybe it’s not
the fault of marketers. Do artists
abdicate responsibility by accepting such a practice?
TK: Not too many people are prepared to stand
up for excellence. It makes for a very
difficult life.
BW: You can’t be an auteur and get along with
everybody. But getting along is a
priority for most people. I suppose it’s
what keeps us from killing each other.
Civ: Is there room
for serendipity in the world we are devising, or is it inimical to commercial
success?
BW: You can always
screw something up, using whatever tools, including focus groups, survey
results, restrictive laws, or nasty social conventions. If someone bleeds the inspiration out of
their product because they want to please the muddy middle that they think they
are in touch with through focus groups, they are going to fail. Nobody will buy the stuff. The audience won’t be fooled; they’ll always
opt for inspiration. Focus groups don’t
yield truth. They yield insight.
Civ: Does peer
pressure make focus groups conservative?
BW: Questions implant answers. If a horror film is put in front of an
audience and the moderator asks, Were you scared by that,” then the focus group
can only respond, “I was scared,” “I was not,” “I was somewhat scared.” You’ve only given them three possible
responses, as opposed to asking, “What was happening to you while you were
watching?” If you ask them what they
think, they have a responsibility to pontificate.
No comments:
Post a Comment