What is it about Moby Dick?

I received an email from my Mother. She has a friend who is reading one of my favourite books – Moby Dick – for a book club selection. She wanted to know why I loved it. I haven't really thought about it that much in definable terms, so I kind of got into my reasoning a bit. It's not a very good literary critique, but I thought it was worth posting nonetheless.

Hi Val,

Mom tells me you're reading Moby Dick for you book club and that you are curious why it's one of my favourite books. (NOTE: This explanation got a little bit away from me, and ended up turning into a really crappy turgid essay. A literary critique that would have my University professors giving me retroactive fails. But it was fun to focus my thoughts a bit. I suspect I'll have to answer the basic question again someday.)

For starters, let's take the basic story-line. A lot of people complain that the book is too complex. And there is an awful lot going on on various levels, but when it comes right down to it, the essential narrative is quite simple and it's fairly simply presented. Many people, myself included quickly tire of the florid writing of anything written before the early 20^th C. but I don't find that Moby Dick goes far in that direction. Perhaps that it's a North American novel – and thus written in a more colloquial form of English – is the reason why. Certainly the traditional image of 'classic literature' is more likely to be written on the other side of the Atlantic. I'm getting off point... The story itself is really very simple, and I think on that basis arguments of its complexity are easily cast aside.

Perhaps it's a testosterone thing, but naval adventure itself has a certain visceral effect on me, and evidence suggests I'm not alone.

But to take the book simply as a naval adventure is to do it an obvious disservice. It's hard to talk about the book without defining its two major elements as separate structural pieces and dealing with each as its own entity.

I'll come back to the narrative after I've dealt with what I think of as the 'documentary' chapters. It actually amazed me when I re-read the novel just how late in the book the documentary chapters begin – somewhere in the forties if I'm not mistaken. They are such an important part of what I love about the book. The precision with which Melville itemizes the aspects of whaling and breaks down the minutiae is for me the most fascinating thing about the novel, and I believe it was one of the most interesting parts of the book when it was published (serially, if I'm not mistaken). Whaling was at the time a very important industry and 'on the radar' of most if not all people – yet unless it was something one had embarked upon, it was an industry that was largely un-illuminated in its detail. All the most essential aspects of it occurred out on the sea, well out of the awareness of the common person and amongst a demographic sub-set which was not known for its public availability. When the book was written it was opening up a new world to people via the story and plumbing detail with the documentary chapters. Compare that to today where whaling is caught between being a dead industry and a criminal act and we get to examine a very different world than our own.

That latter thought is taken to greater/more-specific detail when we look at the knowledge and social norms of the time. Whether it's as simple as looking at the racism applied to Queequeg – even from the relatively enlightened Ishmael – in a manner that was so acceptable at the time that it's baldness is in itself interesting; or looking at Melville's own ad hoc taxonomy of whales – which is so simplistic by today's standards, showing hints of Linnaean influenced order which was probably not popularly known at the time of the writing. I think the chapter on types of whales may even be the first of the documentary chapters – it's an interesting way to begin them; bearing witness to the scientific ignorance of the time and author.

Of the documentary chapters much is said about the literary value of the "Whiteness of the Whale" chapter – which is an oddity among the documentary chapters as it is more like a poem than a clinical or historical examination of anything. I have a very well read friend who loves that chapter and is totally unflinching about the possibility of tossing the rest of the novel away wholesale. For myself I am far more interested in the chapters about the minutiae – the chapter about the use and creation of rope for example – utterly mundane until examined in detail. Who knew that so much thought had ever been put into rope? We tend to just take it for granted.

To the best of my knowledge, Moby Dick is one of the first post-modern novels. I can't really say why it is, but I have a looo-ong appreciation for the clash of styles and approaches that can be used in a post-modern work. There are many ways a story can be told and using multiple styles – chapters in Moby Dick include (beyond the documentary chapters) one which is a short play and I believe plural chapters which are songs. The lack of strict format would not work for all books, but if one format might work better for a certain element, then why not use it? Being an early attempt, Moby Dick is hardly a paragon of post-modernism – having only a fraction of the refinement of say "Ulysses" but I don't think it suffers from it. I don't think I'd be the only person to fairly be able to say that Ulysses borders on unreadable, despite being so tightly crafted to encompass a wide variety of styles without sacrificing unity.

Though it's not a major focus of my appreciation, I find Melville's brewing agnosticism – or perhaps better identified "defiance in the face of god" – interesting as expressed through Ahab. I guess I personally find the mid 1800s to be an interesting time in the philosophical development of western thought because of the dawning possibility/awareness that there might not in fact BE a god in the Judeo-Christian sense. Melville was a little ahead of the curve in that way of thinking. Not outright denying the existence of god, but denying god's authority over himself as a person. "Moby Dick" was written nearly a decade before the publication of "The Origin of Species" really started to shake things up. I do have to wonder if Melville had a chance to read "Origin..." and what that did for his way of thinking. In any case, that was years after he symbolically railed at god through Ahab at the storm and the white whale. As I said, I haven't considered this aspect in depth – and there is much depth to be considered in the book if one wants to read into it beyond the narrative and the documentary – but I suspect that should I get around to reading Moby Dick again, this will be what I focus on.

One more thing that I found interesting (if ultimately unsupportable) was upon my last reading it was suggested in some critical literature that there is a chance that Ishmael is in fact himself Ahab. He does not actually say his name is Ishmael, he merely says "Call me Ishmael." And now Ahab, sole survivor of the Pequod, is banishing his guilt by divorcing himself from his true identity and telling the tale of how he, in the name of revenge, doomed his entire crew. It's an interesting thought – but I don't really think it stands to scrutiny.

I have occasionally noted that there is so much to read in the world that there are few books that are great enough to read over again. I have read Moby Dick twice now, and I suspect there is a good chance I will read it again someday. I really think it is that good.

I hope you enjoy it.

• Kennedy

Moon Landing Anniversary

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing.

I've been thinking of today as Greatest Achievement in the History of Human Endeavour Day.

I've also started a new blog - Confessions of an Asshole Skeptic. I began it with an entry on my thoughts on the moon landing. I do stray slightly towards moon landing hoax discusssion, (hence the connection of the two together in one post here).

The Asshole Skeptic blog is intended to be my on-going skeptical blog. I had begun the TAMazing Blog as a test and to diarize my experiences at TAM. I'm a long way from completing that, but along the way - both in blog musings and in discussions at TAM I found myself thinking long and hard about the ideas of Asshole Skepticism. I'm not going to get into that here - that is the other blog's purpose. It occurred to me that my ongoing exploration of the uses and boundaries of Asshole Skepticism are worthy of their own venue. I will probably do a few scattered posts on the Asshole Skeptic blog between now and finishing the TAM blog. I may even re-open the TAM blog in a year's time should I return to TAM, but I don't think the two should be connected anymore than by association via me.

Social Distortion & the Discovery of Civet

Jodie took me to see Social Distortion last night at the Commodore Ballroom.

It's always cool to be at the Commodore. It's such an awesome room, and knowing that my grandparents danced on that dance floor (okay, the floor was replaced back in the '90s.)

Social Distortion was great. I don't think Mike Ness stopped to breathe until they've scorched their way through five songs. The crowd was awesome – I don't recall being at a concert where the audience was SO happy to be there in a very long time. It's also been a while since I was at a show with hardcore moshing going on.

But I don't really want to spend my effort touting the well established cred of Social Distortion. We tried to arrive late enough that we'd miss the opening acts. We failed in part and thank goodness we did. We missed The Strangers entirely, but as we were coming up the stairs from Granville Street, the all-girl pop-thrash band Civet. Hit the stage like a pack of rabid... mongoose like things, not really lemurs, kinda like cats.... uh... this is actually a joke. Civets are weird looking African mongoose-like, cat-ish, lemurian sort of things. They happen to be believed to be the source of the SARS virus. Perhaps that's why the ladies chose the name for their band... or perhaps it was because they happen to like coffee made of poo.

In any case... they fucking rocked! Imagine the Bangles and W.A.S.P. having love children... that's Civet. They were loud, sexy and absolutely delighted to be there. They made it no secret that last night was the biggest show yet of their lives and they played to the occasion.

If I were to level any criticism at the band it would actually be disguised as a compliment to one of them. The drummer, Roxie Darling, is slumming. They are all high-energy and make up for the shortcomings of their still young career with enthusiasm and passion – saying Darling is slumming is unfairly selling the others short.

This is what it would have been like had The Runaways done burlesque.

Go to iTunes, buy their album Hell Hath No Fury, now.

Cronkite & Apollo 11

I remember watching the news when Walter Cronkite retired. Even though he was an American anchor it seemed weird that there could ever be someone else reporting the news. I'm surprised to be reminded that it was 1981. I expected it to be the late 80s. I'm surprised I had a recollection of him retiring when I was only 11 years old. And since then Dan Rather who took the baton from him has passed it on to Katie Couric... both great in their own way, but nowhere near being the defining face of the news the way he was.

I found out he died last night by coming in the side door of the news. I was watching Apollo Moon Landing footage... one of the links mentioned his death. It couldn't have been more than a few minutes old at the time.

Here's what I was watching:

Part I



Part II



Part III



And now skipping to footgae that is less condensed...

Part I



Part II



Part III



Part IV



Part V



Part VI



Part VII



Part VIII



Kind of strange that he should pass away so close to the anniversary of an event that was so important in his career. Nixon resigning. Kennedy being assasinated. Those are the only things amongst a list of historic events that he was central to the public understanding of, but none in my mind are as luminous (pun intended) as his reporting on the moon landing.

"...and that's the way it is."

Neko Case on Wait Wait Don't Tell Me!

I haven't laughed so hard at a portion of a podcast in ages...

Neko Case (who knew?!?) playing "Not My Job" on "Wait Wait Don't Tell Me" riffing Ken Burns style about Necco wafers.

Interview on Radio Freethinkers

The day after returning from The Amazing Meeting I was interviewed on Radio Freethinkers.

All episodes appear on the feed page, so the longer after the publish date of this post, the further down the page you'll have to scroll. For (relative) ease it's the July 14^th 2009 episode, episode #17.

It was their cryptozoology episode, so naturally we talked about The Beast of Bottomless Lake.

New Words for 2009

Time to update the vocab.

Merriam Webster have published their new words list for 2009.

I'm surprised a few took so long to get recognized. Like; earmark, shawarma and sock-puppet. Haven't there been sock-puppets for... well all my life and longer? And sure shawarma has ported over from Arabic, but this small town boy had his first shawarma in 1991, and I doubt that they had just arrived on the shores of the big city I had it in.

Some of those other words – vlog and webisode, I'm looking at you – in comparison have totally jumped the queue.

A TAMazing time

So... fuck what those boring guys said about post titles and puns...

You probably had to be there.

Just got back from a really great weekend in Vegas at The Amazing Meeting.

LOTS to say. Luckily I have a second blog where I am going on about that, The TAMazing Blog. I'll put anything of relevance there... though it's a LOT of catching up to do. No cross posting I promise.

No King of Mine...

So perhaps you've heard...
Michael Jackson is dead.

I figured, seeing as many of my earliest posts on this blog surrounded his infamous trial that I should probably say something.

No secret, I have no love for Jacko. I've pretty much never been a fan and I think that as much as his life was a disaster caused by his surroundings and success that he has to be held somewhat responsible for himself. He was an adult. There was a world of examples of healthy living surrounding him. If reality wasn't enough of a cue to him that he was way off the rails it doesn't fall to us to make everything alright for him.

I found the response to his death fascinating though. We'd all started the day shocked and tossed into mourning of Farrah (You know Farrah Fawcett died yesterday, don't you?) and then all of a sudden the grandaddy of thunder-heists occurs...

At roughly 3:30 I took a 'picture' of the trending words on Twitter:

according aim alive angeles arrest attack believe believing breathing cardiac cnn condition confirm confirmation confirmed confirming confirms cpr credible dead death deaths die died entertainer flash heart hospital hospitalized icons jacko jackson jacksons king legend los mcmahon michael michaeljackson micheal mike msnbc news overdose paramedics passed pop pray prayers reliable reported reporting reports rip rumors rushed sad saying shock shocked source sources suffered threes thriller tmz trending true ucla unconfirmed

I'm not sure about 'aim' or 'flash', but every other word on the list is somehow related to MJ's (then rumoured) death. Let's see what the list is RIGHT NOW (1:30 June 26th):

11k 2gb 5pm alley alot amar amendment att attempting attsucks bastard bb10 bitch bono boyz brown canada charge chatter chris cilic copy cubs district doubles dragon eastenders feat fees file gaga game glasto glastonbury haas hott hun jack kirk lady lakers lisa mack marie mario max messaging myhotwife mythbusters picked pls polo praising rite roaming robbery savage sharpton shut similar size specials stoudemire supernatural surfing taylor uploads voting wed winans

Hmmm... Sharpton, that's about Michael (more on Rev. Al in a moment). 'Lisa' and 'Marie' may be about Michael in tandem with one another... but I think Twitter is relatively done. But yesterday, his death practically broke Twitter.

That said, TweetDeck posts another 100 MJ tweets every 30 seconds.

Those who know me, know that I hold very little sacred. Death is not one of the things I do. Death is the most ubiquitous fact of life, yet we treat it with kids gloves. This is not to say that life is not precious, and it doesn't mean I would go spouting inappropriate comments to bereaved families. I just think that if we give death too much deference we give it too much power over our lives. Yes, this is an open invitation to treat my death with humour and irony and hopefully instant irreverence. I'm not promising a death worthy of the number of jokes I got out of Michael's demise yesterday - that would be a real challenge.

So there I was taking flak for my irreverent treatment of Farrah on Facebook when news of Michael came in....

I immediately switched to Michael and managed to come up with in the range of five times the amount of inappropriate comments... how many people complained about that? Not one. I find that interesting. Even I must admit that Jacko's accomplishments leave a long shadow across Farrah's, and yet it appears to be open season on him. Go figure.

A few more thoughts before I put this to bed for the moment...

A few absurd pieces of info... once again the "People die in threes" canard surfaces. It took all of five minutes before someone connected Ed McMahon, Farrah and Jacko on Twitter - if that long. So I guess the claims of three deaths at Noon that included David Carradine are now irrelevant? So what about David Carradine dying alone? (I mean without two others, not in the sense that he DID die alone.) What about David Wells? was he too unknown to count...? Or would that inconveniently make it four? What if someone dies today? Will that knock Ed McMahon off the trio 'cause he's too far away? - oh what a difference 24 hours can make! (June 28th Edit: Check and Mate - Billy Mays, obnoxious TV pitchman who you may not know the name of, but you know from commericals died.)

There was a similar tweeting of a list of celebrities who died on the 25th... of any month, not just June and of ABSOLUTELY ANY YEAR. Many of the lists only included African Americans, musicians, or African American Musicians (James Brown Dec 25th, Aaliyah Aug 25th, Left Eye Lopez, April 25th, Static Major Feb 25th.) Accompanying comments include "How random is dat?" "Creepy, huh?" "WTF? Is it a conspiracy?" "Weird, huh?" Allow me to answers those in order.... It's not random, it's cherry-picking. I'm betting I can find approximately 30 times the number of people who have died on different numbered days from exactly the same demographic sub-sets you are using. / Creepy? Fuck off and quit trying to make something of your cherry picked information that totally ignores the laws of large numbers. / No, it's not a fucking conspiracy. Why do you feel the need to victimize yourself by the thinnest of associations? You are just embarrassing yourself. / Weird? Yes. It is. It's weird that anyone can be bothered to make something out of such a meaningless and ultimately imagined pattern. But if you really want to talk about weird, let's go back to Michael Jackson...

In his address outside the Apollo, the Rev. Al Sharpton began with "I hope that finally Michael will be given the respect that he is due..." Let me put aside my acknowledged lack of respect and begin with "What the fuck are you on about? You mean, being labelled the King of Pop, being the fourth biggest selling artist of all time including the biggest selling album of all time (which incidentally rose to #1 on iTunes in the course of hours yesterday after the news broke.) isn't enough? But I just want to peek at one major boner - later on CNN he claimed "Michael Jackson did 'We are the World' before Live Aid." While technically correct, it implicitly skips right over the facts. 'We are the World' followed on the heels of the original famine-relief song by Band Aid on the UK 'Do They Know it's Christmas?' Sure, Reverend, let's make him out to be something more than what he was. Sigh.

I'm going to be curious what kind of information about his life gets revealed over the next several years. I think I'd prefer to not find out that his dealings with children were more questionable than the current official legal version, but I have no faith that that ground is safe. Similarly, I'm going to be curious to see how the trajectory of his children's lives go now that he is not a direct influence.

One last thing that amused me... the approximate time it took CNN to compare his death to Princess Diana's - one hour. Yeesh!

Okay, that's it, I'm off to go and respectfully listen to some Alien Ant Farm and jerk-off to a certain 70s pin-up poster, but for larfs... 3:10 PM... here's the latest trending topics on Twitter... Hmmm Jacksonville, but no Jackson.

allow amendment ana beck blue blvd boehner cocktail cspan cubs damage detention dinner dre executive filibuster findingthegood frank glenn gods hail helped hhrs hoyer indefinite jacksonville jax kaberle kisses leader leads lightning mythbuster netflix newsnight nhl plays preparing producer pulled punk rain raining recap rehearsal remembering reportedly revolt ross savage shade shine sirens springs stimulus storm suspects terror thunder thunderstorm tila tix tornado tornadoes tornados trial tsn unlimited warning waxman

Not So Miserables

I'm not a big fan of musicals. I don't have a default of dislike towards them, I just find that they need to be pretty special for me to like them.

I really liked the film Chicago. I had fun being in Guys and Dolls in high-school. I look forward to someday seeing each of Avenue Q and Wicked. But more often than not I just find the convention of spontaneously breaking into song to reveal ones inner thoughts or to declare one's romantic love just a little bit weird.

All that said, I frikken LOVE Les Miserables. It is hands down my favourite musical of all time. It is epic and tragic and uplifting all at the same time.

I've even been in a condensed (deliberately humourous) rap-version of it – but that is a story in its' own right.

I've seen it five times. The first four were various versions of the Canadian touring cast. The fifth was a preview of the local production opening at the Arts Club here in Vancouver in two days time.

I hoped as I waited for the show to begin that it would diverge from the staging format of the original production. Some shows are constrained by proprietary rights on the design – the essential argument being that the design is inherent to the show. Little Shop of Horrors is one of these shows. (In Little Shop's case mounting the production without using the attached designs for the man-eating plant costs extra.) I was more interested in seeing something new from the show than to see a re-mounting of practically the same show with a smaller budget.

It was apparent immediately that I was going to get something new. Before the first word was sung it was clear that the signature revolve that dominated the stage in the classic production was nowhere to be seen.

The show itself was uneven. It reached peaks of emotion similar to the more accustomed versions, but it came up short at least as many times.

To be fair, I am rather certain that the show I saw was the first time the production had been in front of a paying and objective audience.

My guess is that the cast hadn't yet come to realize that a show this big has no place for humility. It's big and can support a huge performance. Which is not to say that it wasn't effective, but it can be so much more. And once it is trusted to hold up its end of the melodrama it can bear the weight of their raw emotion.

At time's they hit it. Kieran Martin Murphy only half embodies the rich soul of Jean Valjean until the second act when he delivers one of the most awe inspiring renditions of "Bring Him Home" ever. Rejean Cournoyer also reaches for the upper limits of his role with Javert's final song. Jeffrey Victor as Marius is out-charisma-ed by Jonathan Winsby's Enjolras until after the latter's final exit and he has no chance to answer to Victor's wonderfully wrought "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables." Spirit of the West front-man John Mann even fails to come out the gate strong, though gets there later. The Thenardier's as roles are saddled with the task of having their best song – by a country mile – be their first song, leaving them little place to go. Previous portrayals have answered this issue by making such a big meal of the first that the latter ones are inevitably forgotten. Mann and Nicola Lipman (in possibly the most jarring yet ultimately successful casting of the show) finish stronger than they began. Almost as if they're wilfully trying to not retread the well-worn territory of previous "Master of the House" renditions by under-playing it.

As the show went on the performances grew stronger. I continue to chalk it up to being a show that is still finding it's legs – the cast getting more confident as it goes along.

I never felt Rebecca Talbot lived in the costume shoes of Eponine – the role I once rapped (and was no more effective, just silly really) and indeed I was hardly moved by "A Little Fall of Rain" a song that always chokes me up. I was amused to see her surprised reaction to the audience's overwhelmingly positive response – a deserved (despite my quibbles) standing ovation. She didn't seem to be alone... more fuel to my theory that the cast was trying on the size of the show in front of an audience for the first time.

For the most part the child actors are solid. Joshua Ballard as Gavroche is engaging as Gavoroche, Rachael Withers as Young Eponine finds no emotional reality and merely demonstrates her judgment of her character... and thankfully is off stage in little more than one scene, Emily Machette falls between the two as Young Cosette - luckily landing far closer to the former than the latter.

Doing Les Miserables at this particular juncture puts two numbers in particular under inevitable scrutiny. The previously mentioned "Bring Him Home" – Kieran Martin Murphy out sings Jaimie Pugh in a walk. Pugh is tender and beautiful, but Murphy adds drama with fantastic dynamics. Sarah Jean Hosie doesn't fare as well against her virtual competition Susan Boyle. I suspect she may have even been psyching herself out. She knows, like everyone else does, that Boyle's "I Dreamed a Dream" instantly became one of the most viewed pieces of music on YouTube ever. The pressure to match that performance is unavoidable, and counter productive. Hosie bucks the trend of the show and tries too hard.

Excepting a few surprisingly cheap bits of lazy stagecraft the staging itself is more successful and intriguing than clunky... though on occasion it is the latter. I am surprised that Director Bill Millerd, AD of one of the largest theatre companies in the country slips into the a few hackneyed moments of staging that threaten to de-rail the show. It's as if the show runs on five gears but Millerd only has four.

I'd be curious to see the show a sixth time later in the run to see how it has matured. I expect many of my criticisms will be answered as the actors are inspired by the strength of the material to reach the heights that the show's structure can support building up to.

Damn that Puck Luck!

Whatever you do, don't make the mistake of accusing the Canucks of rolling over and dying.

And while I'm at it, let me compile a shot list of reasons the call-in radio-show crowd will be perpetuating – none of which are the reason they lost:

Bad officiating.

A no-show from Mats Sundin.

Poor coaching.

Playing defensively.

I'm not even going to get down on Luongo for looking human in the conference semi-finals.

So what did it then? I propose it was a confluence of things – let's face it, it almost always is – some of which have seeds of truth in the points listed above, but as much as anything, that elusive x-factor "puck-luck" worked against us more than in favour of us, largely by when it reared its head. The Canucks got favourable bounces and unforeseeable circumstances, but never when it counted.

Few people mention or even noticed when in game two a Canucks player lost his stick; if flew up in the air, half of the distance into the defensive end, landing... right back in its owners hands. It didn't amount to anything. I don't even recall who it was and can't find it on-line... because it never made a bit of difference.

But when it mattered most, time after time, the 'Hawks got the breaks.

Game one was a squeaker. The Canucks came out strong with three goals, and then gave up three before taking advantage of the 'Hawks aggression and getting behind their defence for a three on one game winner.

Game two the Canucks came out blazing again, and again it bit back. This time it was a disaster. Chicago's facility with the stretch-pass owned the Canucks, and even though Luongo was still making some spectacular saves he wasn't a sheet of plywood across the goal-mouth and pucks were making it in. To his credit, most of the shots that made it in were good plays on Chicago's part. If anyone was to blame, it was the skaters in front of him – but in their defence, a locked-down game was clearly not the plan. To make matters worse, two back to back bad bits of luck burned the Canucks hard. First, on the penalty-kill – which up to that point had been the Canucks stock-in-trade for months – the puck went off Willie Mitchell's stick over the glass in the defensive end. There wasn't the least bit of intention to do so on his part, it just happened that way. On the ensuing three on five Kelser broke his stick and could not get to the bench to get another, effectively giving the Hawks a five on two and a half. It's no wonder they scored, and that is where things really turned in that game. The flood gates opened and Luongo let more pucks past him than he had in the entire St. Louis series. Psychologically I propose that was a HUGE blow.

For game three coach Alain Vigneault recognized that Chicago's style of offence – specifically that stretch pass – HAD to be shut down. And for the most part, in game three it worked. It would be the last game the Canucks would win.

Game four the Canucks employed the same strategy that won them game three. And why not? Letting the Chicago offence have its' way had led to near disaster in game one, and DID lead to disaster in game two. The plan worked. For most of the game. With less than three minutes left Willie Mitchell had to make a split-second decision about where to clear the puck. He made the high-percentage choice – the one he should make on instinct when there is no time to consider. In other words, in MOST cases clearing the puck along the boards instead of up the middle is the right play for a defenseman to make. This time however there happened to be a flotilla of Blackhawks where he was clearing to... and they scored. Overtime went the Hawks' way too. And THAT was the real turning point of the series. I don't think there is any hockey literate fan who would really bother arguing otherwise.

Game five Vigneault stuck to the plan. It had worked in game three and had for all practical purposes worked in game four – except for those last few crucial minutes. He felt he had more to be scared of the 'Hawks shooting game, and that seems like a reasonable assumption. Once again it nearly works. But twice more puck-luck fucks us late in the game. Arguably Kelser's botched clearing attempt was bad luck giving Bfuglien a momentum changing goal. If someone wants to declare that Kelser failed on that play, I won't stop them. He was mid-check and clearing one-handed. Even if he failed, he was making the play under duress. But then... on the penalty-kill again, Mitchell (Notice how often he is associated with the bad puck luck? Hmmm... perhaps we should be looking harder at Mitchell, but I don't hear him being offered the horns much.) breaks his stick... and Chicago gets the go-ahead. And then to add insult to injury... that is very nearly a pun – with Luongo out of net for the extra attacker in the final two minutes and the assault on Khabibulin mounted, Kelser and Salo trip over each other allowing Havlat an empty net goal. He was probably half-embarrassed to put it in the net, but how could he not?

With the series on the line, Vigneault was put in a bad position. He had to change the game plan again. He had to abandon the strategy that had worked in game three and had worked in games four and five – except for crucial moments where fate had different plans – BECAUSE despite being effective for 90% of the game, that 10% where it didn't cost us the game... twice. He was forced to go back to the strategy that had nearly lost us one game and lost us a second BADLY.

Game six... was insane. A five – seven outcome for the Hawks doesn't tell the tale. The whole game was back and forth and even in the dying minutes two goals behind it still felt like the Canucks might come back. Not much puck luck giving the Canucks the gears in this game. The team just isn't the right team to beat Chicago at their own game. Vigneault accurately said this himself a week ago in mid-series. We made a good show of it, but in the wash the Canucks played better defensive games against Chicago than the run and gun games.

Before game six started, Ami, one of the friends I watched with asked me to predict what was going to be the game story. I said "Knowing that if we don't win that it's the last game of his career, Sundin will play like we've never seen him play." I'd argue that he did. He scored what in almost any other game would have been the game winner but it was soon answered, and he was regularly in the play. For the playoffs, Mats Sundin was third to the Sedins in both scoring and goals. Mats Sundin was NOT the problem on this team.

Bad officiating? Alain Vigneault has the class to not bitch about iffy-calls. He knows they all equal out over time. Canucks fans can suck it up and do the same. I doubt that there was a single call in this series that the refs heard back from Toronto about after the fact.

Bad coaching – Vigneault did what he had to do and made the right choices. They just don't always work out. If anything, he should have stuck to his guns and kept with the defensive game for game six. The previous two losses under that system were mostly due to unfortunate circumstances. But I can't say I blame him for changing. If he stuck to the plan and lost he'd put his job in jeopardy. Making the change, win or lose, he'd made a proactive choice. Alain will still be our coach next year.

Defensive play? – The Canucks won one and lost two for each style of play; offensive and defensive. I don't like to count empty-net goals – they skew the stats away from the real game story. In any case, take the games the Canucks played defensively and the games they played offensively and compare them. All goals counted, the Hawks out-scored the Canucks 7-6 in defensive games; and 16-13 in offensive games. Take away empty net goals and its 6-6 in defensive games and 16-12 in offensive games. Though I don't have the figure in front of me, I am confident that if the amount of time the Canucks held the lead in those games were compared, the difference would be even more apparent. Now... which way came closer to winning?

Anyhow... there's always next year!

Keep Vigneault. Re-sign the Sedins. Give Mitchell a good shake. Hope Kelser plays more like his best than his mediocre self. Give Sundin a heart-felt handshake, thank him for the effort, and buy him a watch. Think hard about the futures of Salo and Demitra... they too may be put out to stud, but not with a hint of shame. Then acquire a few really promising free agents and show Luongo that this is a team he's going to want to keep fighting alongside of after next season... you know, the season where we win the Cup.

Ski Bum Musical

Went and saw the celebratory screening of The Staff: A Ski Bum Musical the winner of this year's Telus 72 Hour Film contest.

The crew was predominantly made up of guys from our crew from Beast.
They were runners up last year, this year they rocked the house.

Congratulations guys!

Cross Posted on The Beast of Bottomless Lake blog.

The Illiad over The Odyssey

An open letter to the Vancouver Mayor and Council,

RE: The Odyssey Night Club

I expect that City Council generally fields more complaints than commendations about their collective actions. This will be the latter.
For starters, in the spirit of full-disclosure; I am a former West End resident. I have not lived there for nearly five years; I am straight; my girlfriend, whose apartment I stay at regularly, lives within 100 meters of the former proposed future site of the Odyssey Night Club on Denman street; and you'll have to take my word for it that I'm not homophobic, though any thorough search of my past would certainly find the heavy balance of by actions to support that claim. I should also mention that while my girlfriend is my direct connection to this issue, what follows does not speak for her - it is my own frustration with a segment of an otherwise well self-representing community and their need to rely upon unsound argument and false premises that fuels this message, combined with a desire to commend council for seeing through the childish and unproductive politicizing being done by the side which feel wronged.
Thank you and congratulations for your recent decision disallowing the Odessey to re-open on Denman street.I have over the past five days heard an awful lot of outrage from within the gay community I am in touch with, and it disgusts me. What I am witnessing is a demographic who rightfully and genuinely feels persecuted, but that feeling of victimization is being irrationally applied in this case.
I've posted a few comments politely explaining the 'other' side of the argument in various locations - including blogs, forums and gay friend's outraged Facebook comments - and in all cases (most unfortunate in the latter case) they have been deleted, and if responded to at all, done so in a persistently hysterical manner. Hence I figured I should respond directly to you via email and publically on my own blog.
Apologies to council for much of what follows is information that you will already know as you are in the thick of it, I include it for the casual reader reading this as an open letter.
I will begin by stating that I fully support the effort to find a new home for the Odessey, but I stress the need to find a solution that will balance the impact as best as possible. I am convinced that the location on Denman was absolutely not the answer that would provide balance.
There is a common assumption in the pro-Odessey-on-Denman-camp, (I may regret this, but for Brevity I'll henceforth use the term "Prodcamp".) that being a vital part of the gay community - a gay-neighbourhood - that Denman street is an ideal place for the night club. I have lived a block off Davie street - behind a relatively quiet night club, but I'll get back to that - and spent plenty of time at my previously mentioned girlfriend's apartment, roughly the same distance from Denman. There is a world of difference in the neighborhoods. While both are rich examples of the gay community, comparing them to one another is not unlike comparing the entertainment district of Granville Street to Shaugnessy. One is where the younger crowd lives and goes to for their night-life, the other is where the married and older citizens settle. Do not be fooled by the propinquity of Davie and Denman compared to the other example. It's a smaller and more densely populated demographic thus the distance is less spread out.
Despite being a major street, Denman is not a 'party street.'
As mentioned above, I have lived behind a relatively quiet nightclub - a gay night club, so the comparison does bear a layer of correlation. Closing time was NEVER quiet, and occasionally I was compelled to call the police due to unreasonable noise from the patrons afterhours in the alley... yes, I am avoiding the gory details.For the most part though we did not complain about the noise - it was merely the few outrageous exceptions - but it needs to be stressed that we moved into that neighbourhood fully aware of both the general night-life along Davie and the specific from said club. It bears saying that this was in the days before smoking was pushed out into the street. That is not a judgement on smoking by-laws, simply relevant framing, as smokers would by necessity spread out along Denman street and ajoining side streets and alleys.Another aspect that the Prodcamp seems to have a tin-ear about is that if the neighbourhood is against the club in the first place that the number of complaints to the owners, council and the police are going to be magnitudes greater than would be experienced in a neighbourhood where the club is established. It's unwelcome nature (not for being gay, just for being loud) would NOT serve it's longterm health as a club - an for the most part, THAT is the crux of the problem, and where Michael Levy is actually being the short-sighted one, contrary to his claims about City Council. COuncil has recognized that noise pollution in the neighbourhood is the primary concern, and that is bang on. It's necessary to acknowledge with out predjudice the existence of largely anonymous, but more specifically spontaneous sexual activity that is ignited within a club. This can happen at straight or gay clubs, thus is not specific to the Odyssey. But when correlated to the proximity of the proposed 911 Denman location to Stanley Park - a known cruising location - it is unreasonable to suggest that couples and individuals would not leave the club heading west through a quiet residential neighbourhood - possibly making it to Stanley Park, possibly not waiting that long - and then have to make a return trip through the same neighbourhood. This is in addition to the expected and accepted diaspora along major thoroughfares at the end or even during a given night's entertainment.
Additionally, putting the club in a location better accessible to other clubs (gay or not) is to the advantage of both patrons out for the evening and to police patrolling. This latter point has little to do with responses to complaints or incidents and is primarily with regards to standard patrolling of night-life. The further the police have to travel, the more their resources are unnecessarily stretched. In the rare event that there is a need to respond to an incident the distance only exacerbates the problem.
There are a few more fallacies and mis-understandings I wish to address as they regularly come up as part of the argument:
Odyssey supporters claim that the noise can be controlled. This is a totally unsupportable claim. For starters the club cannot be actively responsible for revellers who have left the club, they can opnly take flack for it post-facto. Additionally, it is ridiculous to speak for future patrons five and ten years down the road, no matter how many current patrons swear that they themselves will be quiet as they gather and depart.
Council passed a motion to support the Odyssey in finding a new location, as motioned by Councillor George Chow. There seems to be great propensity for the Prodcamp to ignore this. This sadly strikes me as further evidence of an internal need to wield political weight by the demonstrating the false appearance of persecution.The Odyssey IS a cultural icon. Every resonable effor to preserve it should be made in a location where the impact will be less severe, possibly even predominantly welcome. Somewhere along the Davie corridor - not far from it's current location - is the obvious solution, if at all possible. Though if the gay community is prepared to venture out to other neighbourhoods, not specifically percieved as gay, it may be a good thing to break out into either the Granville entertainment district or Gastown. There is an acknowledgeable argument that this might not be as safe; but this should be explored as a counter to the equal an opposite argument that gay activity might be "ghettoized" in the West End, a circumstance that would be reprehensible in either an active or passive form. I believe this latter circumstance would be the opposite of councillor Woodsworth's intentions in her excellent public statements on the subject, and she should stand proud behind her comments and not listen to the ludicrous public attacks of the likes of Joan-E.
Contrary to many attacks, the Odyssey is NOT being forced to close. It is being forced to move by having their lease cancelled - which must happen in order for an AIDS hospice to be built on City land. To quote another public letter from the Prodcamp "Maybe you should leave the Odyssey where it is and try and find a new place for the Hospice." Ouch. This is from a letter within the gay community. I am certain it's not representative of the whole, but it does demonstrate the headspace of some of the Prodcamp, who are willing to throw some of the worst-off segment of their community under the bus for a place to party. It makes me sad. Though... if it is possible to extend the Odyssey's lease for a time longer as they search for a more reasonable location - without impacting upon the building of the hospice, I heartily support and recommend it. Today, April 14th council is to be meeting on exactly this matter, and as I write this I do not know the result.
Another mis-characterization by the Prodcamp is that the opposition is from the elderly. This is fundamentally not true. I happen to know a number of people in the neighbourhood who are not among the elderly who are not in favour of the club moving into the neighbourhood - and at this point, what is the point of name-calling?
I have thus far only managed to uncover one side's versiopn of the alleged "Chinese Restaurant" comment by councillor Chow. I suspect it is being mischaracterized. As it comes across - without ever a direct quote - from the Prodcamp is that Councillor Chow said that when his grandfather's favourite Chinese Restaurant was closed, he was disappointed but eventually he found another.As it appears - and quite possibly in actuality - it's an unfortunate statement. But what was the intention and context? When Councillor Chow's Grandfather was a young man the Chinese population of Vancouver was marginalized - nothing like the enormous and healthy community of today, quite possibly even more marginalized than today's gay community. That's the context. The point is that if the Odyssey closes it's doors forever there will be a void. It will fill. It will fill fast. That's a reality. Hopefully it won't come to that, but if it does, it won't take long before in all practical circumstances there is no difference between what exists today and what exists in the future.
Many of the Prodcamp are prone to making claims about the Odyssey's singular position on the gay community. To hear some, you might think it's the only gay-club in town. Others make the assertion that it's the only gay-club with dancing. Well, I think it's time that we turn to Joan-E for facts rather than hysteria: "Vancouver has Numbers, 1181, Pumpjack, Pulse, Celebrities, The Fountainhead, Oasis and Score. Of those, three have dancing for a combined capacity of around 1500 - all this for Western Canada’s largest gay population."
For those in the gay community who are taking up the stances that this is not a gay issue (or at least isn't until the currently fictional time council approves for a straight-club to open in the same premises); and those who are residents who would have been affected in their comfortable homes with their long-time companions off Denman street, I want to thank you too for being the reasonable people you are.
For those straights who opposed the club, and ever made any sort of assertion of evil in the gay community... please, we are not on the same side - or to the degree we are, you aren't helping.
Once again, congratulations to council for making a well reasoned and forward thinking decision, I'm sure you don't hear that often enough.

Sincerely, Kennedy Goodkey

Best Chance We’ve Ever Had...?

All of five minutes ago – as I start writing this – the Canucks won the division title for the third time in five years.

Yes, it took until the last game of the season. Yes, it wasn't a particularly great game. So FUCKING what?

It brings up the question – what the hell happened last year? We didn't even make the playoffs – but we won the division in the bread years of that sandwich.

It's hard to forget that early in the new year we had a terrible losing skid of 10 games. It's been that ugly before, but this season did include a record home-ice losing streak in that period. And it needs to be pointed out that last year's Stanley Cup champs had a similar losing streak last season. Bus since then, we have been the best team in the league... bar none. That's a fantastic way to enter the playoffs. At the end of the losing streak it was dubious whether we'd make the playoffs at all – in fact a friend in Calgary stated in no uncertain terms that the Canucks would be lucky if we even made the playoffs. I'm trying not to gloat right now.

The Canucks have played in the Cup final round twice. I do vaguely recall both. The first I was a mere 12 years old, and not much of a hockey fan – it was merely geography that had me interested in that one. For the second they made it all the way to game seven of the final – and barely lost it. I watched that one from the same bar in Montreal where I'd sat out the Stanley Cup riot of the year before. In 1994, the Canucks played a spectacular playoff but only got to the final through character and grit.

Since then there have been some decent chances... 2002 (I think) Naslund was on the verge of winning the scoring title when he was injured for the remainder of the season... that was promising. But the REAL chance was 2003 when the infamous Bertuzzi incident arguably resulted in the Canucks losing game seven of the first round to the team that would lose the whole shebang in game seven. Todd Bertuzzi in his best season could have made that difference – to say nothing of Naslund being less shook up and healthier. It's a long and tired argument all around...

But here we are...

About to start a new playoffs... and to my own surprise – I really had little faith before the season started – we have one hell of a team. The Sedins are playing as well as they have ever played – better even. Luongo is kicking ass and had he not been injured for a good portion of the mid-season might have had a truly outrageous season. Hired gun Sundin is firing on all cylinders and has been for ages. And all of the 'young talent' looks more like they have arrived than they're about to arrive.

It's sixteen wins away and there are lots of great teams who need to fall by the wayside first, but since February there has been no team better than the Canucks.

There are some obvious bottom feeders still in the hunt, and a team or two who despite their position in the playoffs are there largely due to early season success – Calgary I'm lookin' at you.

I'm not going to get overly excited yet – we need to win the first round and prove our mettle to really be able to assess the real-world chances, but I think this may well be the most exciting playoffs for the Canucks since that 1994 run.

Ten Alternate Realities I’d be Slightly Happier in.

You're probably at least slightly familiar with the Many Worlds Interpretation of physics. In it every possible variation of reality that could occur does occur. An infinite number of universes that are exactly the same except for "x" and the subsequent changes that naturally follow from the point of divergence. This was the essential plot concept of the TV Show Sliders. These differences could be as extreme as "what of the dinosaurs were never wiped out" to "what if I sneezed a nano-second sooner than I just did a moment ago?"

Anyhow... just for fun and a creative mental work-out, here are ten alternate realities of presumably slight variation that I would like more than the one I've been saddled with... WE have been saddled with. The only rule – no BIGGIES! It's too easy to pick a "what if Hitler died before 1935?" alternate history. Only nominal and frivolous alternate realities allowed.

10) "What if Split Enz were bigger than the Beatles?" Yeah, I could have picked The Clash, but that would be just too easy. And besides, I think The Clash would lose something being THAT big. Anyhow, back to Split Enz - I'd be happier in a world where "I Got You" received the air-play that "Yesterday" gets. Julie Taymor would have directed a cinematic opus called "Six Months in a Leaky Boat." Damn it. I'm already jealous of those alternate worlds and I'm just on #10!

9) "What if the unwashed masses had gravitated towards the far more clever 'Doubloon' instead of calling the 2$ Canadian coin a 'Twoonie?'" It'd be nice to live in a country that witty. I'm just sayin'.

8) "What if the 'space' key on my phone's texting-pad wasn't so sensitive to temperature?" In this universe it in explicably refuses to register when it's cold unless I press it about seven times. It's annoying. There is a universe where I text much less tersely in winter.

7) "What if I hadn't 'ignored' Nicole that summer on tour?" There had to be one of these. I didn't exactly 'ignore' Nicole. I could hardly take my eyes off her all summer, but I never acted upon it. It was totally obvious. Even if I had acted it would have just been a summer fling – she was going back to school at Mt. Alison University and I was moving to Vancouver. At the last night of her last Fringe – Saskatoon I think – that summer she came and hugged me goodbye and whispered in my ear "Don't ignore me next summer." That was my last summer touring. DOH!

6) "What if I'd been healthier upon my return from filming in the Okanagan in Spring 2007?" I had four days before the Vancouver portion of the shoot began. I HAD to rest up. As it was when the Vancouver portion was over I was as sick as I've ever been for a prolonged period of time. But in that window I turned down an opportunity that I really wanted to take. I DID make the right choice, but if I hadn't felt the desperate need to recuperate I could have been in the audience for the FIRST show of the Police reunion tour. That would have been cool.

5) "What if Disney stuck a little closer to the Brothers Grimm?" C'mon. It'd be far more fun if frog princes got thrown against the wall instead of kissed, and wicked step-sisters cut off toes to squeeze into shoes. Or perhaps I'm just a bit perverse.

4) "What if Episodes One and Two had been One and Episode Three had been Episode Two?" Not a perfect solution, but already its better story-telling.

3) "What of fog smelled like mint?" There'd be one more type of good weather – and it'd be radically different from the forms we are accustomed to. Just imagine. Perhaps I should add the clause that smog doesn't count. Who would need an incentive to breathe choking toxins deeper than they have to?

2) "What if the anti-Olympic lobby had the money that the VANOC-2010 committee had back in 2002?" You can't tell me there wouldn't be less headaches in Vancouver today... and over the past few years. Only eleven months 'til it's behind us... sigh.

1) "What if the Steve Moore never cheap-shotted Naslund?" This one plays out quite easily. For starters Naslund would have been in better condition for the remainder of the 2003 season and NHL playoffs. But more than that, the other half of that the truly talented two thirds of the Westcoast Express, Todd Bertuzzi almost certainly wouldn't have mugged Steve Moore (and I'm not going to get into that moral mine-field right now – it's enough to say it would not have happened) and thus would have been playing for the Canucks for the same period. Canucks lost game seven of the first round to the Flames – in overtime. Bertuzzi and Naslund WOULD have made the difference. The Flames went on to barely lose game seven of the final round of the Stanley Cup to Tampa. Do I need to make the implications of this any more clear? "

Joe Bird Died

I've said that probably two dozen times today. Most of them it has been delivered with an incredulous tone that implies that the sentence begins with "I can't believe..."

I never hung out with Joe much. Some, on tour. But for the most part his company – Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie – ran with a different crowd than the Juanabees. There wasn't really any animosity between us (if one discounts the rumours that his main partner in crime had a small hate-on for me personally – allegedly over a girl, but none of that has ever been confirmed (EDIT: Debunked!!! See comments below.)) and the Juanabees even paid tribute to the Trolls in our third show by calling our show "Three Young Hitlers in a Baggie" – a title which melded the names of two of a previous seasons' top sellers.

The Trolls were top dog when we started touring, but they were in the process of transition so we only actually toured together once, before the torch was passed. We crossed paths numerous times though, and in a very real sense the Trolls were the Juanabees inspiration. Between the Trolls and the Flaming Idiots the Juanabees got the incorrect message that touring ALL the Fringe festivals was how it was done. It wasn't. But it would become that way after we did it.

My friend Brian – who was an original Juanabee – dragged me to the last Trolls show at their first visit to the Victoria Fringe. I had genuinely never seen anything like it. I'd seen and done sketch comedy, but the Trolls were pushing things to a new level. It was fast, funny, ridiculous and beyond just being funny had something very real to say. And the music... they were like a rock band that had gone wrong. It was great.

The next year Norm and I would see the Trolls again in Vancouver. It was IN LINE to the Trolls show that I had the conversation with Kevin from the Flaming Idiots that led me to the ill-met conclusion that touring all the festivals was the way to go. It was there that I first heard The Toronto Song. I STILL love the Toronto Song. According to today's Edmonton Journal Joe wrote it and it led directly to their short-lived CBC show. Note: Do NOT start your entire run with the announcement that you should 'lower your expectations.'

I do recall jamming with Joe... it must have been that first year on tour. I'm almost certain it was at one of the infamous 'Fuck Art' parties that became a Fringe staple for a few years. He was an outrageous partier. And part of his seemingly infinite capacity for glee seemed to be his bottomless stamina for being on the up-side of some form of high... though perhaps I mis-read him, but I doubt it.

Joe was always happy to see you, though he probably couldn't recall your name. One couldn't help but think that it was inevitable that he'd die young for that same capacity. I know... or rather, I've been told, that Joe's family was stricken with naturally short life spans. He himself expected to be dead before he was thirty. He was forty-one when he died yesterday. One can't help be struck by the irony – it was April Fool's day.

It's all just thought – random thought, but it's natural to reflect at a time like this. In the past week three acquaintances of mine have died. Joe is the most recent, so perhaps that's why I'm struck by pensiveness now... the dam has broken. But it may be affinity. Joe was born in the same hospital as I was. We have the obvious actor/musician & Fringe connection. It makes me project... both my grandfathers died young. Very different circumstances – I've already outlived the one who died by accident (as opposed to illness.) I suppose that the closer a person reflects ourselves, the more prone we are to consider our own mortality, whatever that results in.

Good journey, Joe. It was good to have travelled with you. Thanks for the inspiration.

More Trolls – that's Joe on guitar.

Look Before You Screen

It's possible to learn a lesson the hard way, as we all know – probably from painful experience. But it's also possible to have those same lessons be a hell of a lot better than they could have been.

Between screenings four and five we had an opportunity to sit down – Mike, Craig and I – and mash our way through a number of issues that were quickly fixable, and a few that were more in depth but that were feeling like we needed to ameliorate in order to get the feedback to focus elsewhere. On that last matter – mission mostly successful! Yay!

We did our final screening (for now) last night. It was our biggest focus group yet, and our most diverse. It was also unique in that it was the only time that we had people in the room who knew no-one involved in the film. A few of the people who had been specifically invited brought people we didn't know. We knew they were bringing people, but we didn't bother to screen them in any way. I think we may adjust that policy next time around.

This past week we have been doing test screenings of the film. For the most part they have been largely painless. Some surprising and excellent feedback and some feedback that we knew was coming and that there was nothing we could currently do about it... in both of those cases solutions are in the works.

Two things happened. One – annoying as all hell; the other – could have been disastrous, but seems to have worked out okay.

THE FORMER CASE: With a minute or two before we started the film, I made a point of pulling out my cell phone and turning to silent in front of everyone and requesting that they all do the same. Several people pulled out their phones and turned them off right then... you would have to be a complete idiot to not notice. Our host declared "I never get calls at this time of night" and we took her word for it, she is a fairly savvy, cool and self-aware person – so if she wanted to leave her land-line ringer on... we were her guests, so who am I to argue?

Twenty minutes into the film our host's phone rang. (Go figure.) She leapt up, answered it and took it down the hall to a back room where she left it... returning moments later. She blew it. She knew it. She handled it as well as could be expected.

Now I would think that having an announcement, and a blatant demonstration of how disruptive a ringer left 'on' could be would be enough of a message to anyone else who left their phone on that they would think to do something about it. Oh how naive.

Half an hour later a cell phone – the sort that simultaneously rings and vibrates – rang. And rang. And rang. No one copped to it being theirs. I was annoyed, but figured that making an issue of it would disrupt even further.

Ten minutes later, the same phone rang and vibrated at length again.

The third time around I actually counted the number of rings. Who sets their phone to 25 rings before voicemail picks up? (And yes... it had voice mail as we would soon find out.)

At this point Craig (with much more tact than I could have mustered in the moment) comment upon the ringing phone. Finally the culprit admitted that it was hers... and did nothing about it. Granted, at this point there were mere minutes left in the film, and it was apparent that it was wrapping up, and she was not in the easiest place to get to her jacket from. At that point it really was the best thing to just wait.

When the film was finished I immediately went around with pens and questionnaires. She took her questionnaire and set it aside and got up and went to her jacket and took out her phone... and listened to the messages that had been left. When she was done I handed her her questionnaire again. She sat down with it for perhaps three minutes (most people take about 15 minutes on average to truly finish it) before declaring (and I quote) "I'm too intellectual for this!" Upon which she stood up and walked into the hall and made at least one call. When she returned, it was clear she had no intention of finishing her questionnaire. And when I made a move to collect it from her she snatched it away from me. She then proceeded to stick around while everyone else finished theirs and sit through the discussion that followed – without participating at all.

So... she is either a totally inconsiderate idiot, or so absurdly important that she can't possibly turn her phone off. Oh wait... it can't be the latter. 'Cause she didn't bother to answer the damned thing when it was ringing off the hook. So perhaps she wasn't anticipating something REALLY REALLY important to happen elsewhere in her life last night. Something so traumatic that she couldn't possibly fill out her questionnaire. Uh... on second thoughts... wouldn't something like that be the sort of thing that when you found out about it you'd apologize for and leave in a hurry rather than sit and listen to a conversation that you had no intention of involving yourself in? I guess that settles it. Inconsiderate idiot.

Oh well, I guess next time I will be really really forceful – verging on insulting – about turning off your phone. But at least I'll have this anecdote to share.

What really picks my ass about it is that she comes to a screening and doesn't give up word one of feedback. We've had others not engage in the conversation – some people just don't work that way, that's fine. But the ENTIRE POINT of coming was to exchange a free advance screening of a film (with free drinks and popcorn I might add) for an opinion about it. I don't care if she hated it. (In fact - that would be useful information!) I don't care if she is "too intellectual" for it. What the fuck does that mean anyway? "Too intellectual?" I know the film isn't Bergman, but fuck you lady, it isn't Farrelly Brothers either.

THE LATTER CASE: I knew I knew one of our other indirectly invited guests from somewhere... this afternoon I figured it out. She was a PROFESSIONAL FILM CRITIC! Doh! She seemed to like the film and her questionnaire had lots of good and articulate feedback on it (and I had decided that BEFORE I figured out who she was) which is not the case with most of the questionnaires – we do have to do a lot of deciphering what the intention and symptom being expressed is in a lot of cases.

I won't say who she was for now – it may never matter. But I do think it's funny!

That could have gone badly. Seriously badly.

Anyhow... next time I think we'll be a bit more hands-on on the invites.

Songsmith ROCKS!

First a disclaimer of sorts...

It appears as though copyright issues are resulting in the links to these going down almost as fast as they go up, so I expect that these will all be broken in short order... or perhaps Microsoft and the various music publishers will give up the fight...

Have you heard of Songsmith?

Well it's simultaneously clever software... and appallingly cheesy.

And speaking of cheesy... the commerical is pretty awful (and yes, that IS a Mac in the commerical... oh dear.) but it kind of shows what the software does better than I am willing to at the moment. Actually... this demo is a little less egregious thanks to it's humility.

To be fair... the program seems to be capable of much more than I imagined, as some of the results below will attest.

I have to wonder what truly valuable applications to this there are? Obviously the commerical is full of shit. No ad-exec is ever really tasked with the job of coming up with the music to the jingle for a product - that gets left to (gasp) hired musicians, which clearly 'Dad' isn't. And it's not instantaneous enough (despite the implication of the commercial) that we could all live in our own crappy Broadway musical if our lap top was always handy. In either above case... shudder at the thought.

But here's the real magic...

People have started taking isolated vocal tracks from famous songs and applying Songsmith to them. The crazy variety from terrible to awkwardly charming is entertaining.

I find it amusing how in some cases it sounds like the singer is the innapropriate part. And in some cases it damned near improves upon the original! (As sad as that is.)

I have to think that some users of the software are going out of their way to push the parameters into areas where it deliberately makes the result sound like a failure, 'cause others are remarkably successful.

In any case the juxtaposition of styles - when massaged appropriately can come up with entertainingly appealing results. A well applied change of mood can work surprisingly well.

And then there are the inevitable (and this has only taken days, judging by the posting dates of the Youtube videos) meta-extensions of the application. From adding backing tracks to speeches, to the inevitable remix of the original (it's crap incidentally, as the vocal track has not been isolated)... and of course even Songsmith is not immune to the Rickroll.

As stated at the top I expect the links to be broken quickly, in which case just go to YouTube and search for Songsmith - someone will have added new stuff... indeed there seems to be new songs every day right now.

I have to thank Paul for drawing my attention to this.

Oscar Predictions

The Oscar nominations were announced today. I have always felt like the nominations are more interesting than the winners – it gives a better snapshot of what is going on politically, creatively and technically in the world of film.

Appropriately, on Monday of this week I finished a journey of ten years. I watched the last of the previous 81 (yes, 81*) films that have won Best Picture. (The last one for me was the rather tepid It Happened One Night.) Someday soon I should do a post on my thoughts on having completed the task.

A month from today there will be a new film on that list. I may have already seen it. In fact, I would bet that I have, but I'll get to that further down.

About two weeks ago I declared to a few people that the Best Actor nominations would be five of the following seven: Heath Ledger for Dark Knight; Richard Jenkins for The Visitor; Sean Penn for Milk; Josh Brolin for W; Brad Pitt for Benjamin Button; Mickey Rourke for The Wrestler; and Frank Langella for Frost/Nixon.

Not only was I right, but the two of those seven that DIDN'T get Best Actor nominations got Best-Supporting – Heath Ledger & Josh Brolin (though Brolin got his nomination for Milk not W.)

I want to take the opportunity on this the day of the nominations to make predictions as far in advance as possible as to who will win – before much external analysis and jockeying for position can happen. I'll look at many of the major categories and throw in a little analysis.

I'll take this in the order the categories are posted on the Oscar website – with the exception of Best Picture, which like the ceremony, I will save for last.

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

It's rare for me to look at a list of nominees and think 'I'd be happy no matter how this one shakes down.' But that is how I feel about the Best Actors.

Richard Jenkins will not win, but it is awesome that he is in consideration. The Visitor came out nearly a year ago, all the other nominees are from films from the last three months... only I believe Milk was the earliest release of the remainder, and it was late November, the other three were all mid to late December. When I saw The Visitor last spring I said to my then girlfriend "We just saw a best actor nomination." I am so happy to be right. His performance is deftly subtle and gently heartbreaking. It is also heartbreaking that Hiam Abbass, from the same film did not get a Best Supporting Actress nomination.

Frank Langella has spent 2 and a half years getting stellar reviews for his stage performance as Richard Nixon... it is no wonder he is getting great reviews for the film. Similarly, Michael Sheen as David Frost – one has to wonder why he missed a nomination. I haven't yet seen the film, but it is high on my list. I have my doubts that Langella can win, though if he does it will be a combination of recognition of his solid journeyman career and his long association with this role. Playing a historical character never hurts your chances, which also applies to the next nominee.

Sean Penn, I hear, is doing his best work ever in Milk. (In alternate versions, he is doing his best work since Dead Man Walking.) I haven't seen it, but it too is 'on the list.' Sean Penn is an actor I have huge respect for, I was so glad when he won his first Oscar, I would love to see him win a matching book-end, but I think there is a wave that will prevent it, which I am getting to eventually...

Brad Pitt is doing excellent work in Benjamin Button, and one of the standard biases of the Academy is towards actors who play role that spans most of a lifetime, and there is no arguing that there has never been a lifetime quite like Benjamin Button's put on screen... but I think Pitt's work is subsumed by the technology that supports his performance and that that will prevent him from winning on this one. It's okay – he will have another chance... which is a thought which also will hurt his chances this time 'round.

Mickey Rourke's disarming self-revealing analogue is almost the only thing anyone talks about when referring to The Wrestler... and that puts even more attention on his brave performance. I suspect that the vast majority of actors who vote will find themselves deferring to their respect for his emotionally naked performance and that Mickey Rourke will take the Best Actor statue in a walk.

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

In addition to Heath Ledger and Josh Brolin, mentioned above, the options for Best Supporting Actor are Robert Downey Jr., Philip Seymour Hoffman and Michael Shannon. Josh Brolin will win an Oscar someday. Philip Seymour Hoffman already has, Robert Downey Jr. is probably my favourite actor alive right now, and he disappears into his hysterically funny role in Tropic Thunder, but he too will have another chance. Heath Ledger ran circles around the rest of the film he was in, as well as making the world forget that Jack Nicholson ever wore the purple jacket and nasty smile of the Joker. Add the fact that The Dark Knight is the Godfather II of superhero films, and of course the cherry on top – Heath will never have another chance to win – and he will join Peter Finch as the only two actors ever to win posthumously.

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

When I made my declaration about which performances would make up the Best Actor nominations I was struck that I couldn't come up with a suitable list for Best Actress. Looking at who was nominated, it starts to make sense. I haven't seen a single one of the films that the nominees represent. I I've heard great things about Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married and the same for Kate Winslet
in The Reader. All Meryl Streep has to do is MAKE a movie in a year to get nominated, and she is an actor who I feel deserves that recognition – she is THAT good... but her perennial nominee nature (as well as having already won) makes it less likely that she will win in any given year. I know nothing about Frozen River (and by extension, Melissa Leo), and I am a bit surprised that Angelina Jolie has been nominated for Changeling. None of the reviews I read of the film made it sound like she was doing a good job – in fact some of them were downright unflattering. She already has a statue – an undeserved one, honestly – I think the best chance of getting a second one on her mantle this year lies with her lesser half... and I've already made it clear I doubt Brad Pitt will win.

So... who will win Best Actress? I think this one comes down to 'whose turn is it?' This inevitably makes it Kate Winslet. She has been nearly as perennial over the past decade as Meryl Streep, and she has yet to actually win. Already walking off with a pair of Golden Globes including one for the same performance as she is nominated for by the Academy doesn't hurt her case at all.

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

I have only seen one of the films nominated, and the performance in question was awesome. If someone other than Taraji P. Henson wins, I MUST see that movie. A few other notes on the subject: I don't think Marisa Tomei actually CAN win another Oscar due to the doubt and controversy surrounding her first win – deserved or not in either case. Penelope Cruz... I have nothing against Penelope Cruz, but I am SO done with Woody Allen. I could care less if one of his films gets any kind of recognition ever again.

ANIMATED FEATURE FILM

It seems that every year this category is made up by the inarguable eventual winner and two sacrificial lambs. This year is no exception. That said, I think the lambs this year – Bolt and Kung-Fu Panda are of better quality than most 'also rans' of the past... but so is the ringer. So far as I'm concerned, you could take nothing more than the opening half hour of Wall-E and put it up against all the winners of the past history of this category in a Battle Royale for 'Best Animated Feature Film Ever' and it would come out as the champion.

ART DIRECTION

As with many categories, I haven't seen enough of the nominees to really make a fully informed prediction, but even with those I haven't I do have SOME notion from clips and other promotional visuals.

With that in mind, I'm going to go to the mat saying that The Dark Knight is one of the most completely realized worlds I have seen on screen in years. Add to that that I expect there will be a lot of grumbling over it not getting a Best Picture nomination and that that will throw it a lot of consolation votes in the technical categories... I think it could easily win this category.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

I believe there are three serious contenders for this award. Benjamin Button, Dark Knight, and Slumdog Millionaire. Much of what makes up the cinematographic victories of the former two dovetails with visual effects, and that ultimately hurts them.

Danny Boyle's rich style is perfectly suited to the lush poverty of Slumdog Millionaire and it is gorgeously realized. Director of Photography, Anthony Dod Mantle will take home this Oscar.

COSTUME DESIGN

It seems that this award it typically dictated by a combination of sheer number of costumes and the requirement of the film in question to inspire the designer to do the most research into period dress – a factor which is magnified by having to cover multiple periods and accurately represent subtleties.

That said, I always have trouble predicting this category. All five nominees require period dress. To the best of my knowledge Benjamin Button covers the greatest scope of time and thus the most differences in dress... although Australia also incorporates multiple cultural idioms of dress. The Duchess involves the most elaborate costumes and there is a propensity to honour the detailed labour necessary to capture that on screen. It's a tough call for me, but I'm going to go with Australia. Catherine Martin already has four nominations (And two wins) combined with Art Direction, and her collaboration with husband Baz Lurmann is notoriously exacting.

DIRECTING

There are many reasons that people win Best Director. Making fabulously realized pictures. Being artistic completists. Making films with huge scope. Pushing the bleeding edge of technology for new creative realizations. Body of work. Stretching one's self into vastly new artistic territory. It's 'their turn.' And god forbid, moving us, the audience or taking us on journeys we've never been on before.

David Fincher has been one of my favourite directors for years. Of my favourite directors he is the one least known by non-cineastes, though when I start naming his films they tend to know of every single one. I've always known that his day would come, and I believe that is has. Take the list above and apply it to the five films & directors that represent them. Fincher gets a tick beside EVERY single item. No other nominee can make the same claim.

Fincher/Benjamin Button: Fabulously realized pictures – not one of his films has ever failed in this manner, Benjamin Button even more so. Artistic Completist – In Fincher's case this is almost to a fault. He is a famous perfectionist, to the degree that he alienates collaborators on occasion (most famously on Zodiac wherein he lost his original Director of Photography – not the first time that has happened to him – and the film STILL feels visually unified.) Huge Scope – Benjamin Button follows an entire lifetime through most of the 20^th Century and into the 21^st. It is truly epic in a very personal way. The Bleeding Edge of Technology – Aging Brad Pitt backwards from a tiny child-sized old-man to his natural 40 something silver screen glory and onwards to an octogenarian teen ager... you simply have to see it. It's fucking fantastic, and we've never seen anything like it. Body of Work – Fincher doesn't have a bad film on his resume. Some are lesser, for certain, but even Spielberg made Always (shudder.) Stretching oneself – Take a look at Fincher's past canon. Every one is classifiable as 'dark thriller' of some variety or another. Benjamin Button is an epic romance. It's their turn – This is the most arguable. This is his first Oscar nomination, but I guarantee that I'm not the only person thinking it's been a long-time comin'. Moving the audience – It is rare that a film utterly makes me forget I'm watching a movie. Benjamin Button sucked me right into its magic for the first 90 minutes solid and left my mind racing in all the best ways at the end.

A quick, hardly comprehensive look at how the other directors fail to hit all the points above...

Howard/Frost/Nixon – It is NOT Ron Howard's turn. He won an Oscar for A Beautiful Mind. The scope of Frost/Nixon is a fraction of Benjamin Button. Technologically it's not ground breaking, nor does it strike me as a stretch for a director who has a number of historically based dramas on his resume.

VanSant/Milk – Gus Van Sant exploring gay themes is hardly new territory. Nor is he adding to the director's arsenal of tools.

Daldry/The Reader – To be fair, I know the least about this film, but from what I can tell, the scope is limited; Daldry isn't pulling any new rabbits out of the hat at the Hollywood Magic Store; despite two past nominations for solid, but IMHO unremarkable films, he only has six credits on IMDB and frankly two of them don't really count in this context.

Boyle/Slumdog Millionaire – If anyone else wins, it will be Danny Boyle. He only really fails in one of the least of the benchmarks – technological innovation – and in my opinion he doesn't make as strong an argument in fully half of the other aspects... but he sure comes close.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

It's significant that the only one I have heard of is Man on Wire, and what I have heard of it is nothing short of glowing.

FILM EDITING

I'm going to Dark Knight for the largely the same reasons I'm doing so for Art Direction.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

Waltz with Bashir, like Man on Wire is the only film I have heard of in this category, and I've heard pretty good stuff about it... which at the level I have my finger on the film world is usually a pretty solid indication it's at the head of the pack.

MAKE UP

All three nominations move into a world where the line between CGI and make-up begins to blur... I'm not sure where the line should be drawn. I'll throw this one to Benjamin Button.

MUSIC (Score)

I wish I knew why, but score is one aspect of film that I really tend not to notice consciously. It's kind of weird – even distressing. Upon repeat viewing score will start to present itself to me, but I rarely register it immediately. I don't know why. As a result, I'm not going to bother analysing this one at all and just go with Wall-E based on the spurious assumption that part of why the opening 'silent' (it's not actually silent) half-hour must be so awe inspiring is that is backed up by a masterful soundtrack.

MUSIC (Song)

For starters... WHAT!!!? NO BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN!???

Okay, that is out of my system. I'm not sure which of the Slumdog Millionaire nominations is the Bollywood dance number at the end of the film, but that is my pick.

>Skipping the short films and sound – neither of which I have any real basis upon which to make a determination beyond wild or even hopeful guess.<

VISUAL EFFECTS

All three nominations were pretty cool, but I only feel like Benjamin Button expanded the film-maker's palette. I'm being somewhat redundant, but Brad Pitt's aging process is enchanting.

WRITING (Adapted)

The three films I have seen are all worthy and I have no reason to think the other two aren't, but in the end I have to go with Slumdog Millionaire. It's structure is refreshingly original (ironic for Best Adapted, I know) and manages to make me forget that the story itself is consistently predictable step by step throughout the film... in fact I might even agree that the juxtaposition of original structure and predictable outcome actually complement each other admirably.

WRITING (Original)

I am kind of stuck here. Wall-E's opening half hour (again, I know) is fantastic, but I don't know that I have been so pleasantly surprised by a film's script this year as I was by in Bruges. It seems to be a pedestrian buddy film, yet it manages to make a hero of a despicable man, without genuinely redeeming him, and it also refuses to give in to an easily Hollywood conclusion. When watching it, I found myself begging the film to end before it gilded the lily by hitting the standard notes of a commercial film ending... and it obliged. I guess, if pressed, I'll go with In Bruges for bravely being 'wrong' to excellent result.

BEST PICTURE

While I didn't make an effort to predict the possible nominees, I am happy to see the results and I think I would have called four of the five if I had tried.

Slumdog Millionaire – As previously mentioned is remarkably fresh for being a film with such an obvious destination. I think it has a real chance of winning – winning a Golden Globe doesn't hurt either. Why was it nominated? It manages to avoid the obvious pitfalls that would and should prevent any film from getting nominated (I.E. It is generally speaking a high-quality film.) but above and beyond that it raises awareness of the Western mind as to the lifestyle of modern Mumbai. A politically relevant message is always a good way to add stock to your Best Picture chances. Additionally, a film that other film-makers can look at and say to themselves "that was not easy to accomplish" is doing itself favours. Specifically, going to the slums of Mumbai and shooting amongst the dense population with a paucity of controls is a significant accomplishment it itself – to say nothing of the purported risk of attempting to do so.

Frost/Nixon – The film is doing itself favours from the outset by taking a well received stage play as its immediate source. Add to that the fact that it is a historical drama that reflects upon current events and it becomes increasingly difficult to not nominate it – all basic quality control notwithstanding, which clearly it manages to achieve... it's Ron Howard – what do you expect?

Milk – Again a historical drama – a biopic, no less. Not to be dismissive, but add gay-rights and issues into the mix on top of a solid work and Hollywood is going to like you... especially in a year when gay-rights are under assault.

The Reader – The film I know the least about. Generally speaking, a well made film which touches – or even directly takes on a taboo subject is doing itself favours. In some cases a film of nominal quality can ride its subject through to a win. Gentleman's Agreement, I am looking at you.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Let me be the first to say it, I have an obvious bias and hard-on for this film. It is my pick for Best Pic. It breaks technological boundaries (which is why Forrest Gump won in 1994); it is epic in scope – like MANY past winners; it is both beautiful and moving; and it's (somewhat tacked on) relationship both on screen and off to Katrina-slammed New Orleans does it favours too; the vast number of locations and eras it covers and the fidelity with which they are rendered plays in its favour. It is not a lock, but I do expect it to win Best Picture as well as more of its other nominations than it fails to win. It's not going to run the table though – Slumdog is too strong a competitor and scattered other ringers will spread the wins around on February 22^nd.

I may revisit this with updated predictions based on the buzz and politics of the day and on (hopefully) better first-hand knowledge of the films in contention.

*The first year of the Academy Awards there were two separate 'Best Picture' categories; Best Picture – Creative (won by Wings) and Best Picture – Technical (won by Sunrise). For some reason they amalgamated the categories the next year, and today only Wings is recognized as the winner the first year.