So Monday night I went out to see the movie revival of the 70s-era musical Hairspray. It seemed like a reasonable plan for a Monday night. Little did I know, however, that I would end up actually traveling back in time to the actual 1970s. That's right. I was hand-picked to join a select group of New York "fans" for a private concert with the one and only, Barry Manilow.
Ok, okay, ok. So I'm not really a "fanilow." And I wasn't totally hand-picked. It was more like, Barry needed an audience and I needed a funny story to tell on Tuesday.
Going into the concert, the sum of my knowledge of Barry Manilow was that 1) he guest-judged American Idol last year, and 2) in the mid-90's, he and Michael Bolton were often mocked. Leaving the concert, I had learned a few new things: 1) Barry Manilow is very short, 2) So short that I bet he got beaten up a lot in junior high (I sort of wanted to beat him up just looking at him), and 3) Private concerts on Manhattan hotel rooftops aren't so cool when you really couldn't care less about the performer, but you have to pretend like you do - because you're on camera. For national television.
Lesson of the evening? When you have a plan to see a movie, see a movie. Like paper beats rock, revivals beat anachronisms.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
If that's a vegetable medley, I'm a monkey.
When it comes to cooking, I am a firm believer in food prep. I am not the world's best cook, but I really enjoy organizing things - almost as much as I enjoy getting things done early so I don't have to bother doing them later. (Precrastination?) Anyway, if I'm going to cook, I'd like to have as much of the intermediate steps done beforehand as possible. The aim is to prepare and freeze as much as you can - so like a Bertoli frozen pasta dinner, all I have to do is throw it in a pan and then eat it. The emphasis is on the eat it.
The result of this philosophy was that I spent this afternoon baking croissants (and then eating them), making (and remaking) spaghetti sauce (to put in mini lasagnas that I'll make and freeze tomorrow), and cutting two large pieces of chicken into a bunch of tinier pieces of chicken. The end goal for this prep work is: spaghetti dinner for tonight, 4 lasagna dinners at a date to be determined, and between 2-3 chicken and broccoli meals at an even later date to be determined.
With any luck, I'll be wearing sweaters again before I do any more prep work. I win!
The result of this philosophy was that I spent this afternoon baking croissants (and then eating them), making (and remaking) spaghetti sauce (to put in mini lasagnas that I'll make and freeze tomorrow), and cutting two large pieces of chicken into a bunch of tinier pieces of chicken. The end goal for this prep work is: spaghetti dinner for tonight, 4 lasagna dinners at a date to be determined, and between 2-3 chicken and broccoli meals at an even later date to be determined.
With any luck, I'll be wearing sweaters again before I do any more prep work. I win!
Friday, February 23, 2007
Friday, February 16, 2007
Have you seen this ad?
For "ClearBlue" pregnancy tests? (See here.) The ad is *totally bizarre,* and clearly marketed for MEN to buy for their girlfriends/wives, rather than for women to buy for themselves. By way of background, most pregnancy test ads have a lot of pink, and talk a lot about reassuring women during a stressful time. Most are also very family-oriented, showing some happy mother with a baby at the end, etc. And most have female voice-overs.
ClearBlue is the complete opposite. The ad, the product name, and the box it comes in are all blue and black. There's no mention of families or missed periods. The ad focuses on being "easy" and letting you know "5 days earlier," without referring to "earlier than what?" It also features a digital read-out - classic useless technological bells and whistles. No mention of babies, or families, or anything of the sort. And the dude reading the ad sounds like he could be talking about an action movie.
They might as well call it the pre-RU486 test.
ClearBlue is the complete opposite. The ad, the product name, and the box it comes in are all blue and black. There's no mention of families or missed periods. The ad focuses on being "easy" and letting you know "5 days earlier," without referring to "earlier than what?" It also features a digital read-out - classic useless technological bells and whistles. No mention of babies, or families, or anything of the sort. And the dude reading the ad sounds like he could be talking about an action movie.
They might as well call it the pre-RU486 test.
Ugh
I'm sick. I know, right? After a week of drinking after everyone I know and having everyone I know get sick. Totally unexpected. Still sucky. I feel like crap.
Here is a list of things I did to try and make myself feel better: eat yogurt, eat macaroni and cheese, shower, have two bowls of soup, take multiple cough drops, drink 4 bottles of water, 4 cups of mint tea and one hot toddie, take a vitamin/several aspirin, watch 6 hours of television, order Indian food, and not leave my house.
Now I feel icky AND fat.
Here is a list of things I did to try and make myself feel better: eat yogurt, eat macaroni and cheese, shower, have two bowls of soup, take multiple cough drops, drink 4 bottles of water, 4 cups of mint tea and one hot toddie, take a vitamin/several aspirin, watch 6 hours of television, order Indian food, and not leave my house.
Now I feel icky AND fat.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Shut up and stop being so smug
Ok, so I'm a big Dixie Chicks fan and all...but Natalie Maines is kind of a bitch. Who accepts a Grammy by shooting a Simpsons-esque "ha-ha"?
I mean for real. Also, the song is sort of preachy.
I mean for real. Also, the song is sort of preachy.
Not with a bang, but with a nipple.
I've been trying to decide whether it's okay to follow the Anna Nicole Smith story. After a lot of consideration, I conclude the answer is yes, definitely.
There has been a lot of commentary online bemoaning the amount of coverage of the Playboy Bunny's death. Some of it has been insightful, including this piece in the LATimes by Tim Rutten, who uses Smith's death to springboard into a discussion about the editorial practices of media outlets in a internet-news based world. Rutten points out that many of the editorial decisions made in the traditional media world (television and print news) are unduly influenced by the web-traffic of online news consumers - hit counts at the LATimes.com are used as "proxy Nielson ratings" to drive the content of the actual LATimes, etc. Rutten's argument is that this is false empiricism, and I think he's right - people who visit online news sources aren't (1) the same people or (2) looking for the same kind of information as people who consume traditional news sources. For instance, when I'm on CNN.com, I'm much more likely to read this story than this story, but were I to watch it on CNN.com or read it in the paper version of the NYTimes, my preferences would be reversed - mostly because I use the internet to fuck around, not get my news.
In any case, back to Anna Nicole. I agree that some of the media coverage weirds me out - but it's not the volume of coverage or the salaciousness. What really messes with my mind is the coverage that is arguably the most appropriate - the more traditional eulogizing of Ms. Smith. I can't remember which paper this was in, but I do remember it was respectable, that had a one-line topic sentence in its obituary that described Ms. Smith as a "buxom blonde." Of all the things to be most noted for - curing cancer, wife and mother, loving daughter, eater of foods - Anna Nicole's contribution to the world was paying for unusually large breasts and not keeping her hair too dark. But even more disturbing to me are the postings online - which are contrasted to the obituary above by the fact that they are so characteristically sincere. All across the internet, the previously "silent majority" of Anna Nicole Smith supporters and admirers is coming out in droves to celebrate the topless dancer's ability to come from nothing and transform herself into a multibillionaire-blow-up-doll. Frankly, it's a little shocking. I'm a big fan of the American Dream - I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons - but I find it strange to group Anna Nicole Smith into the examples of its living embodiments. Her career, her fortune, and her noteriety were all long-shots for a small-town girl from Texas, granted...but they are all shameful and tragic - taking off her clothes, conning an old man out of his money, and being degraded on camera. I wouldn't wish her life or her "success" on anybody. I think it's really sad that she's a rolemodel.
BUT I don't think it's sad for the rest of us to talk about her. The fact is, trainwreck though it was, her life was interesting to watch - or at least the last 1-2 years of it. It's not usual for one individual to have so much life and death and money and controversy in their lives in such a short amount of time. She could have been a fat dude from Alabama, and it still would have been interesting. Who marries a billionaire a year before he dies, then enters into a 10 year long legal struggle with his son that takes her all the way to the Supreme Court, only to have the son die from old age? Who, in the course of a few weeks, gives birth to a baby, has her 20 year old son die in the hospital, and then dies herself from unexplained causes at the age of 39? Who then shocks the world when no fewer than 3 men (one the husband of Zsa Zsa Gabour) claim to be that baby's father - while in reality the father may be the posthumous sperm of her 90 year old former husband? It's really insane. And it's really a good story.
The fact is, if this were a movie, we'd all be into it (well, if it weren't so unbelievable). For that reason, I don't think it's bad for us to follow it. We consume billions of dollars each year in shitty entertainment - just look at Ryan Seacrest. I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be as interested in Anna Nicole as we are in Norbitt - if not more reasonable, since that movie looks awful and Anna Nicole's story is kind of awesome.
As a side note, I'd like to be the first to predict that in 10 years, Elvis sightings will be replaced with sightings of Anna Nicole.
There has been a lot of commentary online bemoaning the amount of coverage of the Playboy Bunny's death. Some of it has been insightful, including this piece in the LATimes by Tim Rutten, who uses Smith's death to springboard into a discussion about the editorial practices of media outlets in a internet-news based world. Rutten points out that many of the editorial decisions made in the traditional media world (television and print news) are unduly influenced by the web-traffic of online news consumers - hit counts at the LATimes.com are used as "proxy Nielson ratings" to drive the content of the actual LATimes, etc. Rutten's argument is that this is false empiricism, and I think he's right - people who visit online news sources aren't (1) the same people or (2) looking for the same kind of information as people who consume traditional news sources. For instance, when I'm on CNN.com, I'm much more likely to read this story than this story, but were I to watch it on CNN.com or read it in the paper version of the NYTimes, my preferences would be reversed - mostly because I use the internet to fuck around, not get my news.
In any case, back to Anna Nicole. I agree that some of the media coverage weirds me out - but it's not the volume of coverage or the salaciousness. What really messes with my mind is the coverage that is arguably the most appropriate - the more traditional eulogizing of Ms. Smith. I can't remember which paper this was in, but I do remember it was respectable, that had a one-line topic sentence in its obituary that described Ms. Smith as a "buxom blonde." Of all the things to be most noted for - curing cancer, wife and mother, loving daughter, eater of foods - Anna Nicole's contribution to the world was paying for unusually large breasts and not keeping her hair too dark. But even more disturbing to me are the postings online - which are contrasted to the obituary above by the fact that they are so characteristically sincere. All across the internet, the previously "silent majority" of Anna Nicole Smith supporters and admirers is coming out in droves to celebrate the topless dancer's ability to come from nothing and transform herself into a multibillionaire-blow-up-doll. Frankly, it's a little shocking. I'm a big fan of the American Dream - I have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton for many of the same reasons - but I find it strange to group Anna Nicole Smith into the examples of its living embodiments. Her career, her fortune, and her noteriety were all long-shots for a small-town girl from Texas, granted...but they are all shameful and tragic - taking off her clothes, conning an old man out of his money, and being degraded on camera. I wouldn't wish her life or her "success" on anybody. I think it's really sad that she's a rolemodel.
BUT I don't think it's sad for the rest of us to talk about her. The fact is, trainwreck though it was, her life was interesting to watch - or at least the last 1-2 years of it. It's not usual for one individual to have so much life and death and money and controversy in their lives in such a short amount of time. She could have been a fat dude from Alabama, and it still would have been interesting. Who marries a billionaire a year before he dies, then enters into a 10 year long legal struggle with his son that takes her all the way to the Supreme Court, only to have the son die from old age? Who, in the course of a few weeks, gives birth to a baby, has her 20 year old son die in the hospital, and then dies herself from unexplained causes at the age of 39? Who then shocks the world when no fewer than 3 men (one the husband of Zsa Zsa Gabour) claim to be that baby's father - while in reality the father may be the posthumous sperm of her 90 year old former husband? It's really insane. And it's really a good story.
The fact is, if this were a movie, we'd all be into it (well, if it weren't so unbelievable). For that reason, I don't think it's bad for us to follow it. We consume billions of dollars each year in shitty entertainment - just look at Ryan Seacrest. I think it's entirely reasonable for us to be as interested in Anna Nicole as we are in Norbitt - if not more reasonable, since that movie looks awful and Anna Nicole's story is kind of awesome.
As a side note, I'd like to be the first to predict that in 10 years, Elvis sightings will be replaced with sightings of Anna Nicole.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
