Skip to main content

Our various public offerings

Sheen is feeling more and more like OJ driving up the 405,” tweeted David Poland earlier today. “I don’t even think people realize they are just waiting for the gun to go off.” Oy. Well, how about a drive down memory lane instead — to a happier, more innocent time when Charlie Sheen actually volunteered to leave a TV show after a healthy payday. (S.T. Vanairsdale, “Remember Charlie Sheen Really Winning on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?,” Movieline, 2 March 2011)

Every once in a while there appears some celebrity with enough Celebrity to let us feel that if we let loose all our despise upon him/her, s/he can take it all in, and then perhaps kindly die, for a fully restive period of, even-if-short, still-pleasing respite. We've been denied it for quite awhile; keep on getting poor offerings -- already fully dissipated Corey Haim and Gary Coleman -- or being effectively checked, with undeniable momentum-carried-and-respectable-enoughs getting in the way, as Heidi Klum did with Britney Spears, or knowing we at-base really want kept around to become leading examples of the kind of austere reform we all need to undertake for past gross self-allowances, as with what is slowly happening with Tiger Woods. Charlie Sheen has Sylvester -- but his canyness-owed surprise summer success hasn't given him much more cred than box office' has given Gnomeo, so that won't prove enough. If he makes it through, my guess is that it'll owe to our unwillingness to not owe him some for his helping gift our preferred conversation about bottom-rung women: is anything more society-approved or desired these days than a teeth-out hunt for barmaids and hookers?

Link: Remember Charlie Sheen Really Winning on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (Movieline)

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...
3 comments
Read more

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...
2 comments
Read more