From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V10 #473 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Saturday, December 22 2001 Volume 10 : Number 473 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Fairly Old Lemon Moon, 468 ["Redtailed Hawk" ] ok, i saw it (not amelie) ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] epics ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Fellowship [BLATZMAN@aol.com] Old Lemon Moon, 469-70 ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Up-to-Date Lemon Moon ["Redtailed Hawk" ] Re: ok, i saw it (not amelie) = spoilers = ["Michael Wells" ] Re: filmmmm + Mighty Big Kilborn [Eb ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 20:17:33 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Fairly Old Lemon Moon, 468 CrowbarJoe: >Compared to The White Stripes (who are in a lot ways quite comparable) they >just haven't got the same edge. They don't re-invent their influences in as >interesting or exciting a way. Hmm, you just sold a middleage fart who lives under a rock on some White Stripes. Can you suggest most impressive tracks for download? - ----------------------------------------------------------- BLaze "Oh no, not anther fucking elf" Man: >, in my opinion, it's a great story told very poorly I see your point. As a novel LOTR is not told conventionally. The way I see it thou is that Tolkein was most definately -not- writing a novel. He had to call it a novel cause thats the literary form of our time but he wasn't really trying to do what a typical novel tries to do. He was going for an older, more basic, less time-bound tone. He was using words to create a lay, a spell, a tale. The form of the novel does not well suit the mythopoetic. Its too consious, not primeaval enough. Ursala Le Guin has a great essay out(its in a book of essays by fantasy authors on Tolkein) which talks abvout Tolkein's superb ear and the rhythmic potency and poinency of his prose. In places its like a chant. He wrote words to draw your body in, as well as your heart and head. Hell--people dont even want that in poetry anymore, let alone a novel. Most people, it seems are now deaf to what has moved humans for milleniams. But its the most basic magic and without it you just have mental structures without foundations. Funnily enough, Robyn has it, thou I cant think of anyone less like Tolkein in many ways. But he has a feel for the sound of words, for stroytelling and for the deep roots of things. And when his novel comes out, I doubt its going to read like a typical clever well-written novel. Well, I hope it dosnt;-). Kay _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:42:36 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: ok, i saw it (not amelie) I enjoyed it quite a bit, though there was a lot that bothered me. The casting I thought was pretty good, and the performances were solid, though not incredibly subtle. Ians Holm and McKellen were fantastic, of course, and I was surprised at how much I liked Viggo Mortensen. Young Master Wood is surprisingly adorable and I was pretty happy with his performance, though I don't think he really brought Frodo to life as much as I would have liked. The first time we see him he's terrific, and after that it's pretty by-the-numbers. Sean Astin was a pretty dull Samwise. I don't see what the fuss was about Liv Tyler...she seemed fine to me, much better than Hugo Weaving, in fact. I could go on, but no one else really stood out as particularly good or bad except for Boromir, who had a terrific part and did a terrific job with it. The film is, like so many these days, visually extraordinary. I was not disappointed in any aspect of the film's look, except perhaps that the Nazguls' dead-king aspects were a little unscary and some rather obvious CGI in Moria (and the first sight we get of the Balrog looks like a rejected Harryhausen effect). However: the fucking camera work drove me up the wall. I don't know why directors think that fancy swooping and plunging and slo-mo does anything to enhance the action. It rips me right out of the scene every time and wrecks any sense of reality that was building. In fact, several aspects of the film reminded me of my gripes with Harry Potter, which is not a comparison I would have understood before seeing FOTR. One: the repeated extreme closeups of people's faces, so huge that they don't fit on the screen vertically. Even if I felt they contributed anything else, they don't make for memorable scenes. Two: the annoying, intrusive, overly demonstrative score. Three: the tendency for emotional moments to be overstated to the point of absurdity. If you've done your job correctly up to that point, the audience will feel what they're supposed to feel when major characters die (or appear to). Dragging out death scenes or zooming in on actors who've just had the old eye-dropper treatment does more to undermine these effects than enhance them. It's funny, though...halfway through the film I was actually *begging* for a festive dinner party. The film overcompensated for all the things that bothered me about the book, and as a result neither struck the right balance. The times we really needed the characterization (hi, Bayard!) it would be glossed over, as in the scenes at the Prancing Pony with Strider where nobody knows whether to trust him. That whole bit, which should have been very dramatic, was reduced to a line or two. I was disappointed with other little losses, like Strider carrying around his broken sword. Some of the changes, like having Frodo solve the riddle of the door into Moria, made a lot of sense but still felt kind of wrong. Well, I don't want to take up a whole digest. I'll just ask one more thing: can anyone explain why the hell Frodo got plunged into that nether realm every time he put on the ring? I mean, I know the rationale within the film, but are we saying here that this happened also to Bilbo? And if so, why the hell would he ever have gotten hooked on using it? Drew ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 12:51:38 -0800 From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: epics > From: bayard >> For good examples of how telling can involve lots of showing, look to >> some of the "real" epics -- Homer, Virgil, and (more relevant) Beowulf. > > I'll wait for the movies - those are dull. Skimming is the key. I never could finish the Aeneid. Did you see the Armand Assante version of the Odyssey? I think they actually made it duller, except perhaps for Calypso and Circe. > From: Eb > > Hm, you could be right. Maybe I'll cut Magnetic Fields and Cypress > Hill from the masthead, and try again. Wouldn't help me none! > I'm going to have a fun day...I'm driving up to chat with Cracker at > CBS, prior to them appearing on Craig Kilborn. Would you believe I've > never seen a TV show taped before? Me neither. If you put Cracker on your list, though, it would become more attractive to me, percentagewise... I was leafing through Film Comment yesterday in the bookstore and read an amusing review blasting _Amelie_ as reactionary, ethnocentric, retrogressive, suspense-free, labored, over-effected (yes, E, not A) tripe. I doubt it's quite as dire as all that, but it was nice to see some difference of opinion. Drew - -- http://www.stormgreen.com/~drew/ "You're living in a global shopping mall, and you're the only person who still thinks there's a bloody exit." - Edina Monsoon ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:07:24 EST From: BLATZMAN@aol.com Subject: Fellowship Pretty damned good film. I am very happy with the narrative changes. The film is a very good "adaptation". I maintain though that the book is entirely boring. The "action" in the book is even dull. I flipped through the book today, and I was really pleased that they sped up the crap between the shire and Prancing Pony. That stuff isn't character development to me, it's freakin boring. How many times do you have to hear about the hobbits bitching about not getting enough food? I do think that character development was short changed in the movie. Galadrial's scenes were very disappointing to me. Sure, she's only a few chapters in the book, but she could have used a few more minutes screen time. Lothlorien is the only scene in the movie I felt was shortchanged in editing. It made me think they filmed another scene in Lothlorien and lost it...maybe Gollum following? and what about Gimli and Legolas' budding love affair? The character development of the Fellowship was very shortchanged. Just one more scene of Borimir would have been nice... And more Tension between Gimli and Legolas is really needed(like when they reach Lothlorien in the book). They are major characters in the trilogy, but their characters needed more!!!! Once again, show, don't tell (Even Geddy Lee is smart enough to know this). I for one will not buy it in the films when they start "pairing up" if they haven't built up the animosity... I think there was just so much to cover, that they tried to put too much stuff in (Why mention the shortcut o mushrooms?) But I find myself bitching when I actually loved the movie. I'd see it again and again, but then I'd still bitch about the horrible casting of Sauroman. That actor plays the villian a bit too over the top. When you put the performance next to Gandalf, Frodo, and Bilbo, it doesn't hold up. McKellen is so amazing he should get an academy award nom... One thing that concerns me is that when the lights went up, I heard a lot people saying stuff like "That's all???" People who don't realize it's a trilogy seemed disappointed. I hope they liked it enough to want to make the journey again next xmas, but by then, will they care? People who say the film Wed night saw it with the hardcore fans. But the mixed crowd I saw it with didn't all walk out with smiles. I hope it does well, and that it encourages studios to take risks like this. Not a perfect film, but a far better movie than it is a book. People who put the book down will find the film totally engaging. Still one of the best films of the year. Dave ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:11:25 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Old Lemon Moon, 469-70 Re:Vanella Sky Solsbury Hill is a sacred song about going insane and/or discovering your true being. Its about walking -out- of the scenery. And its being used in a Tom Cruise movie... . Right there youve got my review, and I havent even seen it. (Nor will I now. Thanks Feg. I was considering going to give it a try cause of Cameron Crowe.) - -------------------------------------------------- Unprotected Love: Christ(or should I say Anti-Christ) those are incredibly great lyrics. Love, love the image of the salmon. - ----------------------------------------------- There are plenty of tricks you can do with ice-cubes, but I havent read the bio and I dont know the Parsons connection. Explication please? - ----------------------------------- Drew: >Hermes was a love god? Well, the shape of his shrines placed at crossroads would certianly qualify him as a sex god. - --------------------------------------- Kay Briggs, who almost always dreams in color _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 21:53:53 +0000 From: "Redtailed Hawk" Subject: Up-to-Date Lemon Moon Blazeman: >Oh man, Robyn's written >so many stupid songs whose only purpose is to put a smile on your face. :-)Its a big universe with room for lost of different stuff. And I -am- so looking forward to Lee's Hulk. I love the Hulk! What you got against the Hulk? Its such a (sniff) poignyent commentary on the human condition. You dont think so? Hey, dont get me angry;-) - --------------------------------------- Eb Do you really not get Aimme Mann? Shes smart, shes sour, shes fucking poooetic and shes even occasionally sweet. Any woman who starts out a song(self and other-accusingly) with "You fucked it up" is alright in my book. Just wish she'd rockout more(ala Superball.) This is not an invite to an argument;-). But I think you make intelligent observations and Im curious as to what you see as her weak points. BTW, nice Pink Flamingos joke. I personally prefer choclate. - ---------------------------------------- Sold on trying to see Amelia. But it will be after LOTR. Family tough stuff is cutting back on my culture vulturing. Royal Tennenbaums also looks interesting. Anything else I should keep an eye out for;-? - ----------------------------------------- Red Vines (my, your hip tastes good) Kay (who really does wonder if God is a pervert and the angels are voyeurs) _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:09:04 -0600 From: "Michael Wells" Subject: Re: ok, i saw it (not amelie) = spoilers = ===== spoilers below, if you haven't seen it yet ===== Senor Simchik opined: > I enjoyed it quite a bit, though there was a lot that bothered me. With a few days to think about it, I still feel this way. I was hoping to have liked it a LOT more. > I was surprised at how much I liked Viggo > Mortensen Boromir, who had a terrific part and did a > terrific job with it. Agree with Boromir's performance. Just curious, why the high marks for Viggo? I get that they were trying to play up the internal conflict in Aragorn's "other path," as Elrond called it. In the books Aragorn's internal debate doesn't begin to settle down until his choice at Rauros, and it resolves as he undergoes the kingly transformation during his seperate path to Minas Tirith. I thought though that this aspect was well overdone in Viggo's portrayal, to the detriment of his perception as a potential king. The book character is still a learned, powerful, and capable man with a nobility that Frodo senses ("looks foul, feels fair"). I got the "looks foul" bit from the screen version, but didn't really pick up much else - and the fact that in the movie Elrond makes that crack about him is completely out of bounds (in the book, the first real glimpse the hobbits get of the future king as such is in the Fire Room at Rivendell, gussied up and standing beside Elrond's chair!). Plus I thought he'd be bigger. > However: the fucking camera work > drove me up the wall. Thank you someone for agreeing with me on this. I put it down to editing; maybe camerawork as a whole is the better term. Either way, it was really distracting. > I was disappointed with other little losses, like Strider carrying around his > broken sword. Some of the changes, like having Frodo solve the riddle > of the door into Moria, made a lot of sense but still felt kind of wrong. Kay will be happy to discuss the sword bit with you at length :-p and I completely agree. And where the hell did his sword at Weathertop come from? Did the Ranger wood stash also include some fine blades just lying around? I was prepared for a lot of these changes as well, but you're right they're nagging. Two that really grated: a) the three forks scene in Moria. No problem that they moved one of the major speeches here, good place for it actually. But when they decide, the path they take is going in the WRONG direction (down, not up towards the surface). b) after Moria when they're hurrying down to Lothlorien, Aragorn breaks off the path. I let out an audible sigh when this happened, I was desperately hoping beforehand that they would include the Mirrormere (never mind that it wasn't Gimli and Frodo going...). A shot of Aragorn cresting the ridge, looking down towards a shimmering blue mere - and it breaks after about 1/2 a second, not even finishing the pan shot of the lake. AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGHHHHH. Suddenly the Fellowship is creeping through trees. Gack. > I'll just ask one more thing: > can anyone explain why the hell Frodo got plunged into that nether realm > every time he put on the ring? I mean, I know the rationale within the > film, but are we saying here that this happened also to Bilbo? And if so, > why the hell would he ever have gotten hooked on using it? Interesting point, but I don't think Sauron was aware of the ring having been found when Bilbo had it and as such wasn't looking for it. He had been driven from Don Gulder in Mirkwood, and had slinked off to the tower that had been rebuilding in Morder. It does bring up the question though that once he knew about it being the Shire - through Gollum's torture - why didn't Bilbo do the freak on the rare occasions he did use it, for avoiding relatives and such? And at his party? THAT would have been cool. Michael "if they half-ass the Proulx movie too, I'm going to be really pissed" Wells ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:43:35 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: LOTR: FOTH >That's "Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Hoof," no? Any relation to >next year's Star Wars film, "Rout of the Clones?" And where's Muriel? you're thinking of "Rout of the Cloven", its sequel. Basically (spoiled spoilers follow) it follows the retreat of the fellowship of the hoof to Minas Deer-ith after their attempted storming of the castle of Kirith Ungulate in Moo-dor, and their pursuit by the Nazgoats. Sasdly LOTR:FOTH seems to be a lotta froth. Go see LOTR:FOTR instead. James James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 23 Dec 2001 11:52:14 +1300 From: grutness@surf4nix.com Subject: Francais, Ecossais, euh. >Im dismayed by our collective inablilty to shed light on the "La Shay" song. >Does chariti sound at all like charity(as in--"Thou I speak with the tongue >of angels, if I dont have charity, Im just a noisey trumphet " etc? Its >somewhere in Corinthains I think and a well known enough passage to be known >by many.) according to my copy of the New Testament in Lalland Scots, the quote is: "Gin I speak wi the tungs o men an angels but hae nae luve i my hairt I am no nane better nor dunnerin bress or a ringin cymbal." It's I Corinthians 13. This version's worth it to read of Jesus saying 'Ye bee-heidit gowk!' and 'Ye muckle sumph!' in Matthew 5. "Le chariti" and "Le shay" could be le charite(acute on e) and le chers(acute on e) which ISTR means something like charity and loved-ones (perhaps our Mac-loving friend Fric might be able to confirm?) James now flying - Tajikistan! three horizontal stripes orange-red, white, green (ratio 3:5:3) with a golden stylised crown surmounted by seven stars on the white stripe. James Dignan, Dunedin, New Zealand. =-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= .-=-.-=-.-=-.- .-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-. -.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-= You talk to me as if from a distance =-.-=-. And I reply with impressions chosen from another time -=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=- (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 17:38:38 -0600 From: steve Subject: Re: Up-to-Date Lemon Moon On Saturday, December 22, 2001, at 03:53 PM, Redtailed Hawk wrote: > Anything else I should keep an eye out for;-? Ginger Snaps, a werewolf movie from Canada. It's out on DVD. - - Steve __________ As for "encouraging people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil," there's only one prominent person trying to intimidate legitimate critics into shutting up about actions they feel to be both wrong and deeply un-American at present. He is, unfortunately, the attorney general of the United States. - Jacob Weisberg ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 22 Dec 2001 16:21:18 -0800 From: Eb Subject: Re: filmmmm + Mighty Big Kilborn >You liked those Bragg/Wilco/Guthrie discs, though, didn't you Eb? Does >that mean you have to kick yourself out of your own club? Well, my main gripes with Wilco are 1) Their songs are weak 2) Jeff Tweedy's voice is weak. With the Guthrie tribute albums, gripe #1 gets tossed out and gripe#2 is lessened by Bragg's presence. ;) >-- d., with _Waking Life_ and _Amelie_ topping the to-see list, and >"Rings" somewhere above _Shallow Hal_. Oh, I really want to see "Waking Life" too, despite its pesky comic-book aura. I'm surprised at what a tiny release it's getting. Even in the Los Angeles area, it has only shown in about three theaters. - ------------------------------ Yesterday was fun, but not as fun as I hoped. Let me start out by saying that I've never enjoyed the Craig Kilborn show, though I don't have a strong dislike for it (as with Leno). It's just...there. Zzzz. This day certainly didn't change my view. A full car search, on the way in. Stop at the security gate, get out, open your trunk, let them nose around. Presumably, this is a post-9/11 policy. There was no personal search, however, so I could've easily smuggled in a knife or gun. Cracker stuff: A bit disappointing. I was backstage, hanging out in the green room, etc., but David Lowery was totally wrapped up in a family reunion. He must have had 10 family members back there with him. And they all look *just like him*. Ha! The same straw-colored hair, the same steely blue eyes, the same powerful jaw. Lowery had a bunch of home video of his kids and things stored on an iBook, and he was showing it around to the others. Merriment ensued. I ended up interviewing Johnny Hickman, because Lowery was just too involved with family stuff. Nothing real exciting to say about that chat, but he's a nice guy. I didn't even get up the nerve to introduce myself to Lowery, though I was "around" him for quite awhile. Ironically, his *father* really bent my ear. He was talking at me for a solid 10 minutes about how good he hears the new Cracker album is (it isn't), his long life in the military, how he worked in the Officers Club for 20 years and thus had known Frank Sinatra, etc...whew. I got a kick out of the old guy. ;) Oh, and I asked him whether Cracker had done much TV, and he made some reference to their appearances on the "Dennis Letterman Show." HA. I watched Cracker rehearse, playing their best new song "Shine" two or three times while the director/cameraman worked out their moves. I was really surprised at how small Kilborn's audience is -- there were only about 80 seats. Eight rows of 10, basically. More like a classroom than an auditorium. Around 5:40, we were ushered from the green room back to the stage area, where now those 80 seats were full o' vacantly happy people. The "family Crackers" (as the warmup comedian labeled us) all stood in the back. The most interesting thing about the filming was seeing how it's shot out of sequence. Even though musical acts always appear last on talkshows, the Kilborn people film the band performing *first* because a performance requires special equipment onstage. I guess the staff/band spends the afternoon setting up the instruments and microphones, films the band, removes the equipment, replaces the temporarily moved decor, and then films the rest of the show as it appears on TV. This wouldn't have occured to me, just sitting at home. Peripheral note: "Politically Incorrect" is filmed just a door or two away. I don't think it was shooting today, however. First, the warmup comedian came out, who was very much an unkempt Jack Black type. He wore a rumpled, gray sweatshirt labeled with "Drunken Fan." He was actually funnier than the show itself. Of course, a big part of his job is urrrrrrging the crowd to laugh, laugh, laugh and clap, clap, clap at everything, even if it's not funny. This was repeatedly drummed into our heads. Repeatedly. Drummed. Into. Our. Heads. Notjack Black also kept teasing us with promises of "free stuff" if we played ball. I figured maybe we'd get some little bag o' goodies, like I've seen Rosie O'Donnell guests get on TV. Nope. The "free stuff" turned out to be a one-song Cracker CD5 for everyone (which I didn't even bother to grab), and *one* Late Late Show mug and T-shirt. No, I don't mean one mug and T-shirt per spectator. I mean one mug and T-shirt for the *entire crowd*. Notjack arbitrarily threw them to individual people. Just call me "Notshirted." Then, Cracker's segment was taped. At this point, we haven't even seen Kilborn (nor did I see him backstage). Cracker twice played the new album's "Merry Christmas, Emily" (appropriately), because something unexplained went wrong with the first taping. I noticed one small piece of confetti-like paper tumbling from ceiling to floor near Lowery as he was singing...maybe that was it? After they finished taping that song, they taped "Shine" too. Interestingly, Notjack explained that they would "deChristmasize" the set first, and that's exactly what happened. Stagehands removed poinsettias, prop Xmas gifts, etc. I wasn't sure why this happened (I knew only one song would appear on the air, anyway). Maybe when the show gets repeated in the future, they will substitute the "Shine" performance and thus take the segment out of a specific seasonal timeframe? But...the rest of the hour still featured Xmas decorations. So...I don't know. Maybe it was just for the band's personal promotional use. The band left, the rest of the family Crackers left, and I stayed to watch the rest of the show. I had to move from standing in the back to standing around the side, directly behind one of the cameraman (who worked a camera on a long boom which does all the transitional/establishing/swooping shots). He was actually shown onscreen once during the program, and I was *just* out of the frame. Heh. Around this time, Kilborn came out to briefly greet the crowd. He also wanted to be sure we would laugh, laugh, laugh, and tested us by saying a purposely unfunny punchline and asking us to react. I think it was "...and his pants fit like a glove." The crowd roared with impressing conviction. The proper show began, not long afterwards. The other guests were Randy Quaid (always liked him) and some boring ditz (Vanessa Rae Miller was the name, I think?) from "Dark Angel." Before the show, Notjack practically *apologized* for her booking, joking that he *knows* no one recognizes people from the WB but "if we book someone from the WB, it's not going to be the intellectuals. It's going to be the supermodels...someone who's HOT!" And I suppose she was, on some level. But apparently, NBC forward Chris Webber was booked for Miller's spot and bailed out at the very last minute because of a sore ankle. This prompted an entire segment in which Kilborn needled Webber about not showing up. It was presented with an "all in good fun" air, but I guess this must have been a real headache for the staff behind the scenes. When I watched CBS later that night, I noted that even the pre-show trailer during Letterman still listed Webber. And that's several hours later. This must have been *really* last-minute. Note: Miller was the *second* unexpected guest for me, because a cable TV guide had told me earlier that *Dennis* Quaid was appearing rather than Randy. OK, that's *two* peculiar intrusions of the name Dennis into this saga. Eerie. The Quaid/Miller appearances were pretty perfunctory, and there's nothing much to say about them. Kilborn talked with Quaid a lot about "National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation," as if that is Quaid's prime contribution to film history. Well, I guess I didn't expect to hear any deep perspective on "The Last Detail" in this context. I was somewhat disappointed that Quaid had a big ugly hat pulled down over his head, because we were robbed of that fun sense that "There he is! And he looks just the same as on the screen." If he had been walking on the street like this, I might not have even recognized him. During the commercial, Notjack made a point to tell us not to yell out an answer to Kilborn's "5 Questions" with Quaid, because that spoils the gag. Fair enough. Kilborn was showing a blue card to Quaid during the commercial break, and I was wondering if he was actually telling Quaid the questions beforehand. But since Quaid missed one of the questions later (which was easy), I don't know. As I said, the crowd had been urged to laugh at all the jokes, but looking around at the people, I think very few were "faking." I'm always tremendously bewildered/alienated when I'm in an audience like this. I'm the same way, when I've seen a standup comedian perform. I guess I'm just very different from other people, because I don't loudly chortle at every damn thing in the world. If a sitcom makes me chuckle out loud three times during an episode, that's a damn good show. But these people...whew. I kept watching this one attractive but hick-like guy several seats away. He not only laughed out loud at practically every gag, but even when he *wasn't* laughing, he was smiling with his mouth wide open, poised to laugh *again*. Wow. He was another species altogether. I just don't get it. As for me personally, I counted exactly one weak laugh during the episode: a joke about dogs' #1 Xmas wish being to "get their testicles back." That's it. I was totally bored, otherwise. Even Quaid was dull, thanks to the dumb questions. After Quaid and Miller appeared, they taped Kilborn introducing Cracker. Except...Cracker had already played and left! He announced the band, grandly gestured toward the stage...and there's nothing there. Nothing. Of course, this was all fixed in post-production. Like I said, the out-of-sequence filming was the most intriguing part of the night. After the show, I ended up splurging at the new Amoeba Records again: 11 items for $51. Good finds: Snakefinger's Manuel of Errors (CD), *three* of the earliest Birdsongs of the Mesozoic releases on vinyl, Husker Du's Metal Circus (also vinyl), the first Superchunk album on tape (which I've been wanting forever), Richard & Linda's Pour Down Like Silver (cassette) and a cheap buck cassette of Morricone's soundtrack for The Mission. The down side: I tried trading in a few dozen CDs, and was dismayed at the resulting sum. About 40% lower than my own estimate. A failed experiment. Eb ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V10 #473 ********************************