From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V2 #67 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, February 14 2002 Volume 02 : Number 067 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 [Steve Holtebeck ] Re: [loud-fans] more movies [LeftyZ@aol.com] RE: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 ["R. Kevin Doyle" ] Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey ] Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop vs.(?) Rockrap (Bjork naked can wait) ["Andrew] Re: [loud-fans] more movies [Roger Winston ] Re: [loud-fans] more movies [Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 Isn't it 2002? Why do I keep seeing loud-fans messages with "2001 Academy Awards" in the subject heading? Is that a typo, or are we still talking about last year's Academy Awards?? If we are, I'm really glad that Bob Dylan won the best song Oscar last year for "Things Have Changed", because it's a great song. Someone once told me I could get a definitive Dylan collection by buying only albums starting with the letter B. Love & Theft starts with L. I predicted last year that L&T would win the Pazz & Jop poll, but I didn't think it would obliterate the competition the way it did. With the Pazz & Jop poll right on the heels of the Oscar nominations, I can almost feel myself floating away in a wave of irrelevance now. Does everyone know that the New Pornographers (P&J #18, loud-fans #1) are touring the US now? (www.thenewpornographers.com). I found these lyrics to "Mass Romantic" (the song) on the web, so they might not be correct, but they're still fun to sing. One song down, 11 to go.. MASS ROMANTIC Mass romantic fool wears Foster Grants. His books on tape were true and every one wants to say I love you, somewhere on the radio, radio. His choice of the hottest stars, never one true loves and offer of my life among the kids who go to shows. This is not the way. In the street like dawn. In the street like dawn. This beat turns on. Mass romantic fools seperated by sheets. When the curtain calls you speak in on the themes of soul and virtue missing from the radio, radio. Now this romantic duels into the streets. Bon apetit, you've eaten me alive, you realize. This is not the way. In the street like dawn. In the street like dawn. This beat turns on. This boy's life among the electrical lights. (repeat until someone tells you to shut up....) - -Steve ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 14:22:33 -0800 From: Matthew Weber Subject: re: [loud-fans] more movies At 04:08 PM 2/13/02 -0600, Miles Goosens wrote: >Rog sez: > >Miles Goosens on 2/13/2002 2:30:33 PM wrote: > > > >> What this tells me is that I should avoid J.D. Salinger's Glass family > >> stories at all costs. > > > >I'm thinking about making a movie out of the Salinger Glass Family stories. > >Does anyone know > >if I need to get permission to do that? > >Now there's a Loud-Fans metathread if I've ever seen one! > >Listmembers who joined in 1999 or after will hopefully excuse me while I >roll in the floor laughing -- and not pester Rog with letters about >copyright law! (However, pestering him with pictures of Ron Jeremy should >continue unabated.) Thanks, Rog! uh, LOL??????????????? Matthew Weber!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Curatorial Assistant Music Library University of California, Berkeley The Lord is a man of war. _The Holy Bible: The Old Testament_, The Second Book of Moses, Called Exodus, chapter 15, verse 3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:34:20 EST From: LeftyZ@aol.com Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies In a message dated 2/13/02 1:26:17 PM, outdoorminer@mindspring.com writes: << Stewart: >While I understand Miles' point of view -- the first thing I said to >Charity as we were leaving the theater was "Well, I can see why some >critics thought this was too precious by half" -- I think that the film did >exactly what Anderson and Wilson wanted it to, which is rewrite J.D. >Salinger's Glass family stories just enough that they wouldn't get sued. >If you look at it that way, the film was quite successful, since it's way >less irritating and more fun than the Glass stories. Miles: <> This may sound a bit anti-intellectual, but some of the comments today re: The RTs and LoTR spend some time speaking to how the movies treated the underlying material.... .....I have always held that a movie, first, must stand on its own as a piece of literature. If it does not, it fails at the threshold level as an independent piece. While I appreciate the related references to the underlying works, if I walk out of a film not understanding (and I don't mean "fully" understanding it, but understanding it as an independent piece), I don't really care if it "did justice" to the book, or "interpreted" the book...or whatevered the book. A film must first be able to stand on its own. Ergo...I guess I just didn't "get" the RTs. Left ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 12:55:34 -1000 From: "R. Kevin Doyle" Subject: RE: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 Steve Holtebeck inquires: >Isn't it 2002? Why do I keep seeing loud-fans messages with "2001 >Academy Awards" in the subject heading? Is that a typo, or are we still >talking about last year's Academy Awards?? While Academy Awards ceremony is in 2002, it is honoring movies made in 2001. Hence, 2001 Academy Awards. Bob Dylan won a best song in the Academy Awards for the year 2000. I think this was designed by the same people who came up with daylight savings time, but I can't be certain. R. Kevin Doyle Honolulu, HI ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:26:05 -0600 From: Miles Goosens Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 At 10:44 AM 2/13/2002 -0800, Jer Fairall wrote: >and b) AMELIE not getting a Best Picture nomination, >since they usually like to nominate one foreign flick >a year in the big category (see LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, >CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, etc). [Before heading to imdb to check] I don't think so -- we've had it happen several times in recent years, but I bet beyond IL POSTINO, you'd have to go back to the '60s for it to be a regular event. I remember some foreign-film actors getting acting nods (like Max Von Sydow for PELLE THE CONQUERER in... '89?), but I'd say that over the last thirty years, the token foreign-language film has been the exception and not the rule. [after looking at imdb] Three of the last six years there's been a foreign language Best Picture nominee -- four if you count THE FULLY MONTY. :-) But you have to go all the way back to (eep!) *1973* to find the last one before IL POSTINO: Bergman's CRIES AND WHISPERS. I would have said FANNY AND ALEXANDER and been wrong by a decade! (F&A did get Bergman a Best Director nomination, and it took home lots of Oscar statuettes -- Foreign Film, Cinematography, Art Direction, and Costume Design.) later, Miles ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:29:36 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Idaho On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Tue, 12 Feb 2002, Michael Mitton wrote: > > > P.S. I happen to agree with Sue that WAKING LIFE wasn't very good. > > While I really liked the animation, 87.4% of the dialogue seemed > > lifted from comments made by undergraduates in an introductory > > continental philosophy class. > > I agree that too many of the speakers in Waking Life were talking > nonsense, but it barely detracted from the movie, because it was that > particular *type* of nonsense which mimics the rhythm and logic of dreams. I saw _Waking Life_...and for the first 3/4 of the movie, I was very close to walking out - something I never do - out of sheer boredom and frustration. All the philosophical disquisitions seemed approx. like yr. average stoned night in a dorm room, and that the main character never seemed to respond or interact made it worse. But I stayed anyway...and then found that the final 1/4 of the movie recontextualized the first half, making the emptiness, even boredom, of the speechifying make sense, and making clear why the main character wasn't responding. While I'm unconvinced that Linklater was so clever as to *want* us to be confused and bored during the first half of the film (and if so...not such a good strategy), I think the final part redeemed the movie enough to bring it into the "interesting...I'd like to see it again" category. This time, though, w/o the fitting but creepy video for Bjork's "Pagan Poetry"... - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::In terms of the conjunctures of cultures, [LA is] less like a salad bowl ::and more like a TV dinner with those little aluminium barriers keeping ::all the vegetables in their places. __Catherine Ann Driscoll__ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:35:54 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Academy Awards 2001 On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Jer Fairall wrote: > Worst Screen Couple: > Mariah Carey's cleavage (Glitter) You mean anyone actually saw this movie? Although that might have been the only reason *to* see it. - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::Sting, where is thy death?:: __Alan Gray_ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:01:34 EST From: AWeiss4338@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop Results / Bjork naked In a message dated 2/13/02 3:50:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, aaron@eecs.harvard.edu writes: > I just got "Love And Theft" yesterday and while I don't entirely get the > hype, I gather that my collection is missing about two decades of > antecedent bad Dylan which might contribute to the feeling that a decent, > thoughtful record with three brilliant songs on it constitutes a > masterpiece. > > Or I'm just a Philistine. > > I agree. I suspect that everyone went crazy because it echos his classic 60s work, after many years of doing anything but that. It's not a bad album at all, just slightly overrated. And his voice is shot. Andrea ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:03:27 -0500 From: Dana L Paoli Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies > What this tells me is that I should avoid J.D. Salinger's Glass family > stories at all costs. I'm thinking about making a movie out of the Salinger Glass Family stories. Does anyone know if I need to get permission to do that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dennis, Every time I get together with other loudfans, the subject of Roger and his little inside-joke posts comes up. I haven't actually bothered to talk with him about this, but a group of us were hoping that you could block all future posts from him, as well as preventing him from accessing the internet. Also, if you could put sticky tape on his mouth, tickle him until he cries like a little girl, and cancel his cable subscription, that would be great. Thanks for any help. If you can't help, please don't accidentally post this to the list. - --dana ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:26:28 -0800 From: "Andrew Hamlin" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop vs.(?) Rockrap (Bjork naked can wait) >I didn't get to vote, but here's how my picks fared: I'm in the same boat as Jer--and frankly, I still don't understand how you even get to vote in the "Voice"--but in my fresh status as Most Alienated Loudfan, I just had to check how my picks did: 1. Jandek (didn't chart) 2. David Thomas & Two Pale Boys (814) 3. Otis Taylor (223) 4. Marillion (321) 5. Shearwater (didn't chart) 6. Kinski (didn't chart) 7. Laurie Anderson (355) 8. Tomo Nakayama (didn't chart) 9. Johnny Dowd (377) 10. Richard Youngs (814) I must therefore, reluctantly, conclude that I'm slightly less alienated from the critical intelligentsia at large, than from Loudfans at large. But wait, no one's yet mentioned the Rock & Rap Confidential Poll, which just materialized: http://www.rockrap.com/02poll.html This one, I voted in. Granted, I can't quite remember how the point-appointing goes in this poll. I'm also not completely sure my ballot posted, because I see no sign at all of Jandek, and the poll ostensibly lists everything that anybody voted for. Taking that into consideration, though: 1. Jandek (not found) 2. David Thomas & Two Pale Boys (2 points) 3. Otis Taylor (12 points) 4. Marillion (3 points) 5. Shearwater (2 points) 6. Kinski (2 points) 7. Laurie Anderson (4 points) 8. Tomo Nakayama (2 points) 9. Johnny Dowd (4 points) 10. Richard Youngs (2 points) I found myself in the singular position of getting personal e-mail from Dave Marsh! I asked him if he had any info as to how to get into the Pazz & Jop Poll, and he replied, "God no. I hate Pazz and Jop so much RRC started its own poll three or four years ago." Amplitude of this sentiment: http://www.addict.com/html/lofi/Columns/American_Grandstand/303/ I'll point out, though, that the two polls have virtually identical Top Tens, this year at least. What that may or may not mean, I leave open for discussion. Off to find an incontinental philosophy class, Andy "In the sweet repose that settles on us after drubbing an Adam Sandler movie, we film critics sometimes become wistful. If only readers could look into our hearts! How we long to enjoy the same films as everyone else. How we yearn for the companionship of a public that would like our films." - --Stuart Klawans, from "Pietro Germi," in his collection LEFT IN THE DARK ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 21:27:10 -0700 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies At Wednesday 2/13/2002 09:03 PM -0500, Dana L Paoli wrote: >Dennis, > >Every time I get together with other loudfans, the subject of Roger and >his little inside-joke posts comes up. I haven't actually bothered to >talk with him about this, but a group of us were hoping that you could >block all future posts from him, as well as preventing him from accessing >the internet. Also, if you could put sticky tape on his mouth, tickle >him until he cries like a little girl, and cancel his cable subscription, >that would be great. Ha, the joke's on you, Paoli! I've got *satellite*! I don't even have a cable modem. And if I did have cable, I wouldn't want to pay for it! And you know, lots of people did talk to Rainswept privately about the rampant annoyingness. It was like trying to get a figure skating gold medal decision reversed. Yeah, let's beat that dead bananafish again. I started it. Latre. --Rog (at least I didn't vote for Jandek) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 22:37:56 -0600 (CST) From: Jeffrey with 2 Fs Jeffrey Subject: Re: [loud-fans] more movies On Wed, 13 Feb 2002, Roger Winston wrote: > Latre. --Rog (at least I didn't vote for Jandek) Jandek's running for office? Cool! - --Jeff J e f f r e y N o r m a n The Architectural Dance Society www.uwm.edu/~jenor/ADS.html ::playing around with the decentered self is all fun and games ::until somebody loses an I. np: some MP3s from the MILK site - xmas concert ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 20:42:51 -0800 (PST) From: Jer Fairall Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Pazz & Jop vs.(?) Rockrap (Bjork naked can wait) > http://www.rockrap.com/02poll.html I managed to fare about the same here, despite actually *voting* in this one. Still no Sorry About Dresden, but the following caught my eye: Winona Ryder, SHOPLIFTER Jer np: Vermont, CALLING ALBANY ===== Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V2 #67 ******************************