From: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org (stillpt-digest) To: stillpt-digest@smoe.org Subject: stillpt-digest V2 #111 Reply-To: stillpt@smoe.org Sender: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-stillpt-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk stillpt-digest Tuesday, May 16 2000 Volume 02 : Number 111 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: o / Bedazzled (was Re: o/leguin) ["David S. Bratman" ] o / Bedazzled [Todd Huff ] Re: b/comments5/14 ["Hilary L. Hertzoff" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:10:03 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: o / Bedazzled (was Re: o/leguin) I think it was I who first brought up _Bedazzled_. I have, or had, a very strange history of that film. When _Monty Python and the Holy Grail_ came out in 1975, I went with my friends - the ones who'd seen _And Now For Something Completely Different_ and had told me about Python - on a pilgrimage to see it. Truly the most delightful film going experience of my lifetime - _Holy Grail_ is still my favorite film of all time - but it had one odd element. We had time only to see _Holy Grail_ and not the film it was double-billed with, something that neither I nor any of my friends had heard of called _Bedazzled_. But we got there in time to see the final scenes of the previous showing. We walked in just at the point that George comes into the greenhouse to have his little chat with God. When it was over, we all turned to each other and said, "What the heck was that all about?" and were very sorry indeed we couldn't see the next showing. I left determined to see this film. But it took five years of assorted missed opportunities and schedule conflicts before I nailed it down and finally saw it. To think it took that long before I saw the nuns on trampolines ... This was the first encounter I had with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, but not the last. It was also the first I saw of Eleanor Bron, who played the love interest: the top female comedian of the whole Fringe/Python Oxbridge generation, she's still around, and I last saw her as the evil headmistress in _A Little Princess_ a few years back. As for the remake (for ghod's sake, _why?_), the only other named character currently in the IMDB list besides Brendan Fraser's hero (here called Elliott) and Elizabeth Hurley's devil is one Allison, played by Frances O'Connor, she who played Fanny Price in last year's _Mansfield Park_. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 12:16:10 -0400 (EDT) From: "David S. Bratman" Subject: Re: o/dogma I saw _Clerks_ and thought it tremendously funny, even more so than the _South Park_ film. I think I have a reputation for disliking dirty humor, which both these films definitely are: but what I dislike is the assumption that dirty words themselves are funny (cf 5-year-olds laughing because they can actually say "poophead": I found this seriously unfunny even when I was 5). Put an actual joke in and I'll be as amused as anyone. By the standard of _Clerks_, I found _Dogma_ a wee bit disappointing. It hung together less well, even though _Clerks_ was a rambling episodic story and _Dogma_ was not. And the ending was way overlong, seriously flawed theologically (especially the deus ex machina at the end), and generally not making sense in a way characteristic of a lot of works that try to overlay moral ambiguity on top of moral certainty: both _Practical Magic_ (the book more than the film) and _Princess Mononoke_ also had this problem. However, the earlier parts of the film were much better, and the earlier the better. Even Chris Rock was good in this, and that's one heck of an accomplishment. Knowing Ben Affleck mostly from this film and _Shakespeare in Love_ (where he plays the company's chief actor, the one induced to settle for the part of Mercutio), I am very impressed by him. It was certainly not blasphemous, any more than _Life of Brian_ was. By the way, you might want to look at Ruben Bolling's cartoon for last December 2nd, in which God-Man meets a familiar-looking arch-villain called Blasphemy-Boy. (The archives are on www.salon.com/comics) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 10:27:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Todd Huff Subject: o / Bedazzled The Bedazzled remake is currently set for an August 11 release. "George Tillman Jr. remakes this 1967 comedy about a nerdy tech advisor (Brendan Fraser) in love with co-worker (Frances O'Connor). A mysterious woman (Elizabeth Hurley), who may be the devil, gives the man seven wishes in return for his soul. Script by Larry Gelbart, Harold Ramis and Peter Tolan. (Fox)" Ramis is also directing. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send instant messages & get email alerts with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 May 2000 17:26:09 -0400 (EDT) From: "Hilary L. Hertzoff" Subject: Re: b/comments5/14 On Sun, 14 May 2000, Donald G. Keller wrote: > For starters, here are some speculations for Tuesday's episode: > > -There are =still= important things we don't know about Riley, and > we at last will find out about them--and they'll be crucial to the > plot-resolution. I suspect we won't find out everything; there will probably be some threads left dangling for next season. There always are. > > -Riley's participation in fact will be necessary. > > -Adam will be "dismembered" in some manner. > > -Spike, as Allen said, will betray Adam in some way; and he =won't= > get the chip out of his head. He's playing both sides against the middle and counting on everyone being too busy fighting to pay attention to him. Having Adam to remove the chip before the battle would be nice, but if it doesn't happen he isn't any worse off than he already is. > > -Buffy keeps saying she knows Riley, and trusts him. This smells > like a setup. > This is always a setup. > -=Somebody= (Xander, Giles, Willow in descending order of > likelihood) will figure out that Spike was "playing" them, and > everybody will get a grip and figure out a way to help Buffy. > Tara and Anya, they're the least emotionally affected by Spike's game. > It's also interesting to note how well Spike's ploy worked, because (as > Susan pointed out) there was just enough of a grain of truth, or > plausibility, in what he said for the victim to take him seriously. And he > didn't even know about the whole Xander/Riley situation which also set > Buffy off! He's been paying attention and the Scooby gang let down their guard around him. Fluffy bunny chip impaired Spike does have his uses (and he isn't stupid). > David: It wasn't the =fact= that Buffy and Angel's relationship was sexual > that upset Riley (though I'm sure he wasn't happy to be reminded of it), > but that it was the trigger for Angel losing his soul, and that--so he > surmised--it had happened again. (If Angel =had= lost his soul again, > wouldn't we have felt his actions to be entirely justified?) Notice how he assumed Angel was evil again - act first, ask questions later like the good little soldier he is. > > Meredith: You're asking the right questions about Riley, it seems to > me. I'm not sure Forrest's death acted as a "trigger" (in the > metaphorically mechanistic sense of Angel's "trigger"); I'm more inclined > to use Occam's Razor and say that it was merely the last straw for > Riley. But how he found Adam so quickly and easily demands an explanation, > and the vitamins and a possible implant are certainly interesting areas of > speculation. Funny, it never occured to me that Riley going to Adam was related to Forrest's death, I assumed that Adam had summoned him (as we head for the final battle). > > You know, when you mentioned the preview for this Tuesday, I realized I'd > =completely forgotten= it; when I went back and looked, I realized that I > saw it only "on the fly" "live" and must have stopped the tape before I > got to it when I rewatched the episode. > On the whole it doesn't tell us anything we hadn't guessed (Buffy fighting > Adam, etc.); but that last image is really bizarre. I remember now the > first time I saw it I thought "Aha! Dream sequence!" but on review I'm not > so sure. In slo-mo it's clear that it's some kind of small shell (or large > bullet) that Buffy stops with her hand, and then it turns into birds. > > I'm not sure how I feel about this. I've always felt that Buffy's > superpowers were nicely delimited, that they solved problems only up to a > point, and she also needed her heat-of-battle ingenuity and the help of > her friends to solve the rest of the problems. (This is what separates her > from Kendra and Faith.) If they're going to turn her into Supergirl, I'm > going to take some convincing. > This reminded me of Japanese cartoon series, like Sailor Moon. Each new season has a hook - new costumes, new powers, new villains - so that the kids have to get the new tie in toys. Um, speaking of a teenaged superhero who wants to be an ordinary girl, who has a brooding boyfriend (who turns evil for a while), who dies at least once and is reborn... > I agree that 1) it was a good thing for Angel to apologize 2) it seems > like an awful long way to come just to do that. (And they made it pretty > clear like he went back to L.A. immediately.) And it could have been done over the phone but they had to have a fist fight between Buffy's current and past boyfriends (it's traditional). > > Hilary: You know, I'm feeling stupid. I went into two comic book stores > the last week and couldn't find the Hellcat comic. That's the title? (No, > I didn't ask; I'm allergic to helpful clerks.) That was the scrambled post wasn't it... Thnderbolts 2000 came out in March (Patsy returns from hell) Avengers 2000 came out last week (Patsy goes back to her hometown and we catch up on all of the supporting characters from the original Patsy Walker series and fight demons). She's the one on the cover in the yellow and black. Hellcat is a three issue miniseries starting July 5. Hilary Hilary L. Hertzoff From here to there, Mamaroneck Public Library a bunny goes where a bunny must. Mamaroneck, NY hhertzof@wlsmail.wls.lib.ny.us Little Bunny on the Move hhertzof@panix.com by Peter McCarty ------------------------------ End of stillpt-digest V2 #111 *****************************