REVIEW: Life of Brian

I had already seen virtually this entire film, but never all-at-once. Life of Brian is a popular flick for cable channels like IFC to air, so I’d previously seen bits and pieces of this movie in a non-linear sequence across 10-years. But this was the first time I sat down and watched the entire movie from start to finish.

Frankly, the most impressive thing about Life of Brian is that it was made at all. Well, maybe not that it was made at all. I mean that it is amazing that Life of Brian was made and looks how Life of Brian looks. I’m saying it looks good. It looks expensive. It looks like any other feature length film released in 1979 looks. It’s a movie that clearly had a significant budget, which is remarkable considering the abhorrent content of the film.

So abhorrent that the movie was banned in countries all around the world, and protested by picketers at theaters in the countries where it wasn’t banned. Surely such a reaction was foreseen when the concept for the movie was first considered. The movie is set up as a 94-minute parody of the theological beliefs that billions of people hold dear. Surely the Monty Python crew knew that if the movie ever got made, people would be pissed. But even if they didn’t, how is it that the studio executives who bankrolled the film didn’t forecast an incensed reaction?

Generally, the established pattern of the relationship of budget to non-offensiveness of content in movies looks something like this: At the intersection of “Budget” and “Non-offensiveness of content” you’ll find really weird porn that you can only find in Germany and Japan. Then, as you move up the curve, you find regular conventional porn. Followed by strange art house movies, not unlike ones made by Crispin Glover that feature a cast made up entirely of adults with Down Syndrome. At the very end of the curve, where there’s a large budget and a high degree of non-offensive content, you’ll find movies like Avatar or Toy Story. Stuff like that. Where you can bring the kids.

Life of Bryan, while not wholly pornographic (although it does feature full frontal shots of Graham Chapman and Sue Jones-Davies), is wholly disrespectful of organized religion. Particularly Christianity, whose cohorts, tend to be the most vociferous (topped only by cohorts of Islam). Considering where it ranks on the chart for “Non-offensiveness of content,” the movie should have had a budget just above a soft-core adult film (specially when you consider the presumably uptight mores people had in 1983, the year that preceeded the election of Ronald Reagan). But just look at the movie. It had to have cost millions. Look at the costumes. Look at the extras. Look at the sets. All that stuff costs a lot of money. It’s a remarkable feat that this movie got made and made to look the way it does. Not only are the members of Monty Python candidates for comedic brilliance, but pecuniary brilliance as well.

I can’t tell if I sincerely liked this movie because it was good, or if I liked it because I dislike religion. Either way, the fact that this movie is still widely discussed makes it mandatory viewing.
THUMBS UP!

It's a catty cat world

S.A.L.D.F. had a couple extra hundred dollars in its budget this year. So we're spending it on an 8-hour Saturday morning lecture that we're hoping people will voluntarily attend. Probably not the best idea, but hey, it's not like I lobbied for some other animal law related event. Karen Reynolds was already chummy with the ladies that are putting it on, so it was easy to make happen. Life is for the living.

I made this flyer to promote it:
Hopefully it (the flyer, not the workshop) will go over better than my last one.

REVIEW: Stand By Me (the movie)

One of the more beguiling aspects of watching blockbuster hit films from a few decades ago is knowing what will happen to the actors in the movie several years down the road. ‘Stand By Me’ may be one of the best examples of this (second to ‘The Outsiders’) because of the relatively early age of the actors used. The unusual thing about ‘Stand By Me’s cast is that 24-years later, all of the actors have a noteworthy place in America’s collective celebrity consciousness, except, somehow, for the lead role.

At 15, River Phoenix (vegan) gives an outstanding performance as Chris Chambers, the stalwart leader of the gang. Young River Phoenix is indiscernible from young Geoff Rowley

Little did the viewers in 1986 know, that in a short 7-years in the future, R-Pho would be OD’ing on a West Hollywood sidewalk. But dying young isn't really that bad (if you're a famous actor/musician). Between ages 15 and 23, River Phoenix had already made known to the world the depth of his acting (not musical) ability and had probably nailed more chicks (and dudes) than I’ll ever nail in my life. It’s sad that he died, but, really, what did the future hold for him? Even if he survived that exceptionally powerful bump of Persian Brown, he would’ve only ended up in rehab, and then either found his way into a zealous cult/religion that he would credit with his chemical and spiritual salvation, or onto ‘Celebrity Rehab with Doctor Drew’ after years of hopelessly struggling with substance abuse. He also would’ve inevitably made some grave career missteps along the way which would’ve probably included some poorly received children’s films and at least two discreditable endorsement deal.

Corey Feldman’s (vegan) performance leads the audience to believe, at the time, that he’s a deeply disturbed kid with grim psychological issues that barely come to the surface. Decades later, people now know that that is just Corey Feldman, and not his character, Teddy Duchamp.

Of the four main characters, Jerry O’Connell (law student), is remarkably the only one with a legitimate acting career still intact all these years later. And, for what would be astonishing to the 1986 audience, many of those roles include portrayals of lead alpha male types. Way to go, Jerry!

I don’t know what the fuck happened to Wil Wheaton. I remember him as the baby-faced adolescent that somehow wound up on the Starship Enterprise in ‘Star Trek: The Next Generation,’ but couldn’t really say what happened to him after that.

Richard Dreyfuss is a legend and will undoubtedly be until he dies. Recently, I thought his depiction of Vice President Dick Cheney in Oliver Stone’s ‘W.’ was nothing short of spot on. John Cusack is still a household name, although I can’t imagine his co-starring in ‘Hot Tub Time Machine’ is doing anything to secure that status. And Keifer Sutherland can be seem every Monday night on ’24.’

Actually, there is one actor from ‘Stand By Me’ whose future is far worse than Wil Wheaton’s. If you look up the actor Gary Riley, who played Charlie Hogan
on Wikipedia, you'll find the following paragraph:

"Currently, there is conflicting information regarding the health of this actor. There is a claim that the actor died on June 10, 2007 as a result of an automobile accident. This claim is currently unverified. An alternate explanation regarding this claim is that the person who died had the same name as the actor Gary Riley but was a different and unrelated person[1]. There is presently no information on the Internet that can verify either the actor's death or that the actor is presently alive."

That's bad either way you slice it. Either he is dead, which is bad, or he isn't dead and is totally unable to make it widely known to the public that he is in fact not dead because his cultural status has slipped so far into obscurity that news of his life is deemed hopelessly lackluster to the internet elites. Bummer.

Regardless of the futures of the individuals acting in the film, there's a lot of heart and a compelling story that seems a little campy now, but was probably vanguard at the time. For the most part 'Stand By Me' still holds up decades after it's original release date.
THUMBS UP!

Out the Meatloaf Meat Out

Every year S.A.L.D.F. has its annual Meat Out lunch and lecture. And every year I make a flyer or poster for it. And as with every flyer or poster I make, it's met with mixed results. For last week's Meat Out, I made this: I guess it was poorly received by S.A.L.D.F. members because, despite my tireless efforts, nobody bothered to print it out and post it up.

REVIEW: Beavers

I’m not entirely sure this was a real documentary. I feel like it may have been staged. Like ‘Death of a President’ or ‘This is Spinal Tap.’ It’s hard to believe that famed IMAX cinematographer Andy Kitzanuks actually went into the remote regions of the Canadian Rockies in the mid-80’s and shot this movie. Presumably all on film reels. It looks like it was shot on a sound stage in LA with Pomeranians in beaver costumes.

There’s certain shots that seriously bring into question the authenticity of this film. One is where there’s a nighttime shot of a fox along the banks of the river. While the fox is standing there motionless, the camera pans to the right, which makes you think for a moment that the camera is intentionally moving away from the fox, but then, as if on cue, the fox turns as walks in synchronicity with the panning camera. In another shot, the camera follows a beaver swimming underwater up into the inner secure compartment of his beaver dam where his beaver babies are being tended to by their beaver mom. The dam is filmed like a classic sitcom where 3-walls of a living room are intact leaving the fourth wall open to cameras. Like an ant farm. This shot is completely impossible for two reasons: (1) There’s no way beavers would build a dam with a cavernous area that allows for an uninhibited camera to shoot a single transitional shot from underwater to inside the dam; and (2) Even if beavers did somehow incidentally allow for such a pathway to exist in their dam, they certainly would have noticed the camera (and probably camera man) zipping through their domicile and reacted to it. The beavers just act normal. Like it’s Steve Urkel casually having a conversation about human genome alteration with Carl Winslow in the Winslow family living room.

Assuming it’s all real, the camera work is worth the viewing experience, but what the “documentary” has in forehead-slapping cinematography, it lacks in actual conveyance of factual narration. Beavers runs for 33-minutes, but only contains about 5-minutes of dialogue from the narrator. They don’t even attempt to cover the basics, like if beavers mate for life? How long can beavers hold their breath? Do beavers give live birth or do they hatch from eggs? Why are the beavers constantly making noises like their hostages with gags in their mouths? Is that their language? I know all these questions could be answered with a simple Wikipedia search, but this movie came out in 1988, which means a lot of 4th graders on school field trips left the IMAX Theater feeling academically unfulfilled and even though they sat through 33-minutes of non-stop beaver action, they intellectually have nothing to show for it.

All and all, the stunning camera shots make it all worthwhile. It’s such a visual spectacle that even if the movie was totally silent, it would still be worth a viewing.
THUMBS UP!

My Ball & Chain

For Spring Break, I went to Montreal with Brian and Dan to stay with Jeremy at some place he was renting from an Irish professor. The first night I lost my brand new camera which had been gifted to me by my parents earlier this Christmas, but didn’t get to me until this month. I really only had the camera for a week before it fell out of my possession at some shitty teenage dance club.

The following night, after the Go-Go Lounge let out, I scaled the window pain out front and attempted to swing from the awning covering the entrance of the club. I remember grabbing the first cross bar with one hand but failing to get a grip with the other. I went down hard on the pavement. The ground must’ve been at least 6ft. below my feet when I fell because apparently I kicked a bouncer in the face while making the leap from the window to the awning. Brian, Dan, and Jeremy carried me back to Jeremy’s where I played witness to some dramatic pandemonium between some crazy slutty French Canadian chick named Virginie, and her marginally closeted dude friend. I went to sleep before it was over.

When I woke up the next morning, I noticed some unfavorable swelling and coloration around my left ankle. I laid off it for the rest of the weekend and stayed home watching satisfactory to execrable DVDs while everyone else went out. I initially diagnosed my condition as a sprained ankle and intended to lay off it for about two weeks until the swelling went down and then proceed with my life. However, under my mother’s insistence, I went to a doctor in Lebanon who referred me to an x-ray technician, whose photos revealed a minor fracture towards the bottom of my left tibia.

It’s hard to say when I’ll be back to my old itinerant self, but bear in mind that due to my loss in digital camera and ability to walk, there will be a noticeable slump in posts. Sorry.

Mankind are governed more by their feelings than by reason

Thanks, Sam.

Winter is over...if you want it

Something that I really love for all disposable products is special limited seasonal editions. The most common form of this occurs in fall when egg nog and pumpkin find their way to shelves around the country (although mostly the eastern part). It's a great thing that only seems to be embraced by breweries year-around. Sierra Nevada is one of my favorite of those breweries, and with the exception of their Celebration Ale, they don't disapoint. The Glissade is their Spring edition and while it stays in line with Sierra Nevada's streak of producing excellent beers, in strays from the typical Sierra Nevada by having a very subtle flavor. I've come to find Sierra Nevada's products to encompass a wide variety of complex flavors all within one bottle. The Glissade is unusual because of its understated taste. It's like the volume has been turned down which lends itself well to being paired with food. While I don't think I would pick the Glissade over Sierra Nevada's flagship brew, the Pale Ale, there's something special about the GLissade that gives me hope that Spring is right around the corner.



I read some review of the Magic Hat 'Vinyl' that said the problem with it is that it tastes like the vinyl lining of a car. I honestly don't think that's so bad. The vinyl in a heated up car actually smells pretty damn good. I wish there was a way I could eat it. Unfortunately, the Magic Hat 'Vinyl' just tastes weird and sloppily put together like all other Magic Hat beer. I really want to like Magic Hat because it's the go to local brew and I imagine when I move away from Vermont, I won't be able to find Long Trail or Ottercreek or Harpoon, but I will be able to find Magic Hat. It bums me out that I will likely say "no thanks."

Week's Predictions

Best Supporting Actress:

Best Supporting Actor:

Best Leading Actress:

Best Leading Actor:

Best Director:

Best Picture:

Best New Music:

Quantum Meruit

Vauxhall & I

No Age

The United States (by county)

Library south...campus level

S.A.L.D.F. Bored

Stampede!

Oakes east

Oakes west...parking level

John Pieper M.P.R.E. lecture

Dead Ended