From: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org (ecto-digest) To: ecto-digest@smoe.org Subject: ecto-digest V12 #10 Reply-To: ecto@smoe.org Sender: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-ecto-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk ecto-digest Thursday, January 12 2006 Volume 12 : Number 010 Today's Subjects: ----------------- cute guardian article/ipod [adamk@zoom.co.uk] hopes for this year [anna maria "stjärnell" ] Brokeback Mountain (was Re: hopes for this year ["Xenu's Sister" ] Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 [aural gratification ] Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 [Hooplessly Unfroody ] Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 [Steve VanDevender ] Immi on Letterman (was: RE: ecto-digest V12 #9) ["Karen West" Subject: hopes for this year Hi.. some hopes for this year.. that hannah fury's new ep is totally fabulous. that nellie mckay's new cd is released soon. that dalbello returns. that x-men 3 isn't too shabby. that brokeback mountain lives up to the hype. that firefly gets a new shot as a series. ect, ect. anna maria Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 09:27:28 -0800 (PST) From: "Xenu's Sister" Subject: Brokeback Mountain (was Re: hopes for this year - --- anna maria stjdrnell wrote: > that brokeback mountain lives up to the hype. It certainly did for me, I've seen it twice already and want to see it again. The only thing about the word "hype" is that it leads people (or could lead people) to sit there in the theater and think, unconsciously, "now be brilliant, dammit!" and then if it doesn't *seem* to do that, they might come away underwhelmed. The first and foremost thing to know about Brokeback Mountain is that it's a quiet little movie, made for under $14 million. There are beautiful sweeping vistas, but it's an intimate story. It moves at a slow, deliberate pace, and a lot of what happens happens in the characters eyes, and glances, and movements. Forget about the subject matter, it probably wouldn't appeal in any case to people who don't like slow, deliberate movies where nothing much seems to happen for long stretches at a time. You have to pay attention, because a lot does happen, but it happens with your participation of attention and awareness. So be warned. It does more than live up to the "hype," but hype implies a studio/media driven enthusiasm. Godzilla had a lot of hype, and it needed it because it sucked (supposedly, I haven't seen it). Brokeback Mountain doesn't have hype as much as it has fans, among the industry, among the critics, among the people who see it. It's a beautiful, heartbreaking film, a tragic love story that rewards patience and understanding, as well as repeat viewings. Why watch a tragic love story over and over again? Well, first, I'm one who's watched Zeffirelli's Romeo and Juliet about a thousand times, so maybe I'm weird to begin with. Just because sad things happen doesn't mean that the rest of it isn't worth wanting to see again. Second, I noticed so much the second time I saw it that had completely passed me by the first. Glances, bits of dialogue, pieces of music. I think I'll notice more each time I see it again. Third, I found it to be a very compelling, haunting film, one that keeps drawing me back, to celebrate the love that Jack and Ennis shared, and to grieve the heartbreak they experienced and caused. I'm not hyping when I say that, for ME, it's a perfect film. The scenery, the acting, the writing, the dialogue, the direction, the music, the story as told...everything is perfect. I don't think one scene could be lost without hurting the film, and I don't think one scene could be added to make it any better. Would I like the resolution to be different? Of course, but that would be a different movie, not this one. This one is what it is and I accept it for what it is. It's no good saying you wish the Titanic hadn't sunk. That's a given. Yes, it's getting a lot of awards attention. Needless to say I think it's deserved. It's my favorite film of 2005 and it thrills me to see it being recognized because it's a great movie, not because it's "controversial" or "daring." It's a very simple love story, but stands among the great love stories of movie history, and the great tragic romances of film and literature. I follow the awards season very closely and try to see all movies that get awards attention. I believe it will win Best Picture at the Oscars (though nominations don't even come out until the end of the month), as well as Best Director and maybe a few more. It will deserve every award it gets from now until Oscar night. But in the end, it's a small, quiet movie, so forget that you're *supposed* to think it's brilliant because of the clamor, and don't let expectations of greatness make you think it's an epic film. It's a small, quiet movie, so just let it unfold in front of your eyes and feel it. And by the way, Chris loved it too. I can attest that it doesn't turn straight men gay. :) It's not just for gays, lesbians, and women who like a good weepie. There are themes that will resonate with anyone, even straight males, who have loved, and lost. Vickie (whose hopes for this year would include a Happy Rhodes album) - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Music, all I hear is music, guaranteed to please... Happy's MySpace profile: http://www.myspace.com/happyrhodes Happy Rhodes song samples and rarities: http://wretchawry.com - -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 06:45:31 +1100 From: andrew fries Subject: Re: cute guardian article/ipod adamk@zoom.co.uk wrote: > I thought it was a neat idea, but the thing I found interesting is that they > got all these artists together -- and they all had iPods. Not one had a Zen > Creative or an iRiver or a Sony mp3 player or anything different. I would not be suprised if iPod become a generic name, the way 'hoover' became the term for 'vacuum cleaner'... a few years down the track we might be referring to all kinds of portable music players as 'iPods'; we already have a term 'podcasting'! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:05:11 -0500 From: aural gratification Subject: Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 Hello Did anyone tape, TVO, record in any manner or shape, Immi on Dave last night. Will consider first born for a copy. Thanks KB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 18:41:39 -0600 From: Hooplessly Unfroody Subject: Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 I'll get my one post of the year out of the way early this year - I recorded up until the point Dave said "My apologies to Imogen Heap" with 30 seconds left in the show... It's already been deleted. :P bob At 04:05 PM 1/11/2006 -0500, aural gratification wrote: >Hello >Did anyone tape, TVO, record in any manner or shape, Immi on Dave last >night. >Will consider first born for a copy. >Thanks >KB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:48:23 -0800 From: Steve VanDevender Subject: Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 Hooplessly Unfroody writes: > I'll get my one post of the year out of the way early this year - I > recorded up until the point Dave said "My apologies to Imogen Heap" with 30 > seconds left in the show... > > It's already been deleted. :P > > bob After seeing Kevin's post I was kicking myself for forgetting to catch Imogen on Letterman, but it's only a small consolation to find out that nobody got to see Imogen on Letterman. > At 04:05 PM 1/11/2006 -0500, aural gratification wrote: > >Hello > >Did anyone tape, TVO, record in any manner or shape, Immi on Dave last > >night. > >Will consider first born for a copy. > >Thanks > >KB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 20:41:05 -0800 From: Tom Masapollo Subject: Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 Hello, I taped Letterman for one hour and didn't get anything. Was Imogen on? If not, will she be on tonight? thanks, tom At 1/11/06 04:41 PM Wednesday, Hooplessly Unfroody wrote: >I'll get my one post of the year out of the way early this year - I >recorded up until the point Dave said "My apologies to Imogen Heap" with 30 >seconds left in the show... > >It's already been deleted. :P > >bob > >At 04:05 PM 1/11/2006 -0500, aural gratification wrote: > >Hello > >Did anyone tape, TVO, record in any manner or shape, Immi on Dave last > >night. > >Will consider first born for a copy. > >Thanks > >KB ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 21:53:36 -0000 From: "Karen West" Subject: Immi on Letterman (was: RE: ecto-digest V12 #9) It's on in the UK tonight so I will be recording it via Sky+ (like Tivo only better) and can put it onto DVD for you. Karen http://navy-bean.blogspot.com > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ecto@smoe.org [mailto:owner-ecto@smoe.org] On Behalf Of aural > gratification > Sent: 11 January 2006 21:05 > To: ecto@smoe.org > Subject: Re: ecto-digest V12 #9 > > Hello > Did anyone tape, TVO, record in any manner or shape, Immi on Dave last > night. > Will consider first born for a copy. > Thanks > KB ------------------------------ End of ecto-digest V12 #10 **************************