Sundance and Jared are such nice guys, and Sabrina was my favorite.

So like everybody, I guess, I'm floored by the upsets on American Idol tonight.

But Cal beat UCLA, hooooyah!!!

Posted by: annika at 10:24 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 39 words, total size 1 kb.

People are making a big deal about Bronco Bomber's recent surge in the polls against Hillary, most notably among black voters. Hillary made a fool of herself in Selma, and Bomber is clearly making her scramble earlier than anyone thought she would. But she'll survive that embarrassment.

I still don't see Bronco's insurgent campaign winning the nomination in the long run. I like Bronco Bomber, I'm reading his book. I don't like his politics, but for me, he represents the end of the baby boomer stranglehold on American political leadership, which can only be a good thing. Too bad he's going up against the Clinton machine.

I'm sure that Hillary and her staff have been behind the growing list of thinly veiled attacks on the Bronco Bomber campaign. The list includes:

• Claiming that he attended a radical Islamic school in Indonesia.
• Trying to hold him accountable for the (well taken) anti-Clinton comments of David Geffen.
• The brouhaha over Bronco's pastor being dis-invited from his announcement ceremony.
• The so far unfounded allegation of a quid pro quo stock transaction.

That's just crazy. Republicans need Bronco Bomber to mount a strong campaign. It doesn't make sense to knock him down. Every serious political observer knows that Bronco won't win the nomination unless something catastrophic happens between now and the beginning of next year. Given a choice between an establishment front-runner and a populist challenger, Democrats will always nominate the establishment candidate. I think the only modern exception to that rule was McGovern, so you can see why they wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

From my long range vantage point — almost 20 months from election day — I'm beggining to see two general strategies that each party should use to ensure victory.

For the Democrats, it's easy. Hillary will be the nominee, and she will have a fight on her hands if she goes against Giuliani. That's because she won't be able to take the big blue states for granted. But Giuliani's weakness among social conservatives can be Hillary's secret weapon if she practices a bit of political judo. All she needs is a far right third party candidate, and she will cruise back into the White House. Some say the Republicans were behind Ralph Nader's candidacy back in 2000. I don't know, but it's obvious that Gore would have been president if he'd had Nader's 2% in Florida. I think a Republican Nader, like Pat Buchanan or someone of his ilk, would be just what the doctor ordered for Hillary's ailing campaign. She needs to stop worrying about Bronco and start looking for a social conservative to funnel money to.

For the Republicans, the key is in preparing the general election battlefield by defining Hillary now. She's giving them all the help they need, as she stupidly attacks Bronco through her surrogates. Every time another sneaky negative story appears in the New York Times or some other pro-Clinton organ, the Republicans should take note and tie it to her campaign. The key is to define Hillary as a female Nixon. Devious, sneaky, mean, and unlikeable. You want people thinking these things when the general election comes around.

She'll do anything to win.

That Obama guy seemed nice, and look what she did to him.

You don't want to cross her.

She has an enemies list, just like Nixon.

Her past history fits in well with this narrative. Remember Travelgate?

I had thought that Hillary's left flank might be her undoing, but now I don't think so. Other than a few scattered hecklers, I haven't seen the unhinged protesters that I expected to follow her around. I think even the true believers know that she's their best chance if they want to avoid repeating the humiliations of 2000 and 2004. That may change as Bronco gets stronger, though. Another reason why I'd like to see him continue the charge.

Posted by: annika at 04:54 PM | Comments (19) | Add Comment
Post contains 701 words, total size 5 kb.

A USC free speech group was fined by the university for posting flyers outside USC's free speech zone, which say "This is not a free speech zone."

Story at LAist.

Posted by: annika at 09:46 AM | Comments (7) | Add Comment
Post contains 48 words, total size 1 kb.

Things you can do when you have a country estate:

"Pretty unimpressive," he says? Now there's a dude with ambition.

Via Maximum Leader

Posted by: annika at 08:25 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought this one was interesting. I was looking for poems about hamburgers, because I just ate one.

Burger King

by Henry Burt Stevens

"At Burger King, Midday Sunday, Ft Myers, Florida"

Moving slowly not
to spoil their raiment

moving calmly
still otherworldly,

they do not see any of us
white, brown, or black

sitting with our families
eating burgers and fries,

though they smile gently
to one another.

We know who we are
and why we are not seen.

If it happens while
we're all together

we'll see them taken up
leaving us behind

but for now the saved
have joined with us for lunch.

Posted by: annika at 02:42 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 114 words, total size 1 kb.

A happy belated birthday to Elizabeth Taylor, who was born February 27, 1932, in Hampstead, London, England.

Today's movie needs no introduction.

Cleopatra, 1963

This is the big one. Cleopatra is the most expensive American film ever made. Adjusted for inflation, it cost more to make than either Waterworld or Titanic. Only the Russian made War And Peace from 1968 cost more. The 44 million Cleopatra's producers spent by 1963 translates to over 285 million dollars today.

Cleopatra almost destroyed 20th Century Fox. For a time, it was the only movie in production from the studio. It's an example of how not to make a movie, if you want to save money. First, they completely rolled over for Elizabeth Taylor. Not only did they pay her million dollar asking price, with no counter-offer, they agreed to all her other demands including that it be made outside the U.S. When all was said and done (including a lawsuit filed by 20th Century Fox against Taylor and Burton) she ended up taking home 7 million.

Twentieth Century Fox originally started filming at Pinewood Studios in London, constructing a huge outdoor set of Alexandria. Taylor got sick (she almost died from pneumonia) and the production sat idle while she recuperated. They couldn't film because she was in mostly every scene. England's weather wouldn't cooperate either. It seems Rome and Alexandria in the fog just wasn't convincing enough for a big budget epic, so they finally destroyed the set and moved the production to Italy. By the time they were finished with it, cameras had rolled in England, Italy, Egypt and Spain.

Because of the delays, they also had to replace the original director and their two male leads, who got sick of waiting around doing nothing. Meanwhile, the script was written as the filming was going on, which required the production schedule to follow the script. That's not the most efficient use of sets and personnel because it requires that everybody stick around collecting paychecks, whether or not they're going to be used that day.

And the sets were extravagant. If you look at the details in the background, you can see they spared no expense. The gold leaf was real gold. Even the props were beautifully hand crafted. One minor actor had a sceptre made for him, which cost a shitload of money. After one rehearsal he said to director Joseph Mankiewicz "Joe, do I need this stick?" Mankiewicz said, "No, get rid of it." The actor later grumbled, "That's the trouble with this picture. It's full of such sticks." Another example — one of Elizabeth Taylor's 65 costumes was made out of spun gold.

Producer Walter Wanger (who did four months in jail for shooting a guy in the dick) seemed like the perfect guy to handle an iconic female biopic, since he made Queen Christina with Greta Garbo back in 1933. He wasn't up to the task. After Cleopatra, he never made another movie. Studio head Spyros Skouras was accused of cooking the books to hide the runaway spending from Fox's shareholders. When one accountant refused to cooperate, Skouras fired him and got one who would.

The scene in the YouTube video below is one of my favorites from the movie. Here Queen Cleopatra makes her triumphant entry into Rome with Caesarion at her side. It's a pretty good example of how the filmmakers spared absolutely no expense on this picture. There's no CG animation of course. So when you see Queen Cleopatra riding on a 50 foot sphinx being pulled by a hundred men through the Arch of Titus, she's really riding on a 50 foot sphinx being pulled by a hundred men through the Arch of Titus.* When they originally started filming this scene the shadows were unacceptable to DP Leon Shamroy, so they had to wait another six months before trying again.

Cleopatra is an incredible motion picture, as befitting an incredible woman, Cleopatra VII, the last Pharoah of Egypt. It's over four hours long (cut down from the original six hours) and even I couldn't watch it in one sitting. Its strengths include the spectacular pageantry, costumes and majestic score, which you can see and hear in the above YouTube clip. The battle scenes are great, and some of the matte paintings are indistinguishable from reality. The movie's weaknesses include the plodding script, which never seems to get into the character of its main subject. We learn a lot about what Cleopatra did, but we never really seem to get to know her.

By contrast, we learn that Marc Antony was kind of a loser, while Gaius Julius Caesar was a real winner. Rex Harrison (pre-Henry Higgins) was surprisingly convincing as the Dictator of Rome. Richard Burton, on the other hand, played Marc Antony as if he had just graduated from the William Shatner school of acting. For some reason, Burton's Roman skirt is about six inches too short throughout the movie. It looks silly, and his legs weren't that great.

In this next scene you can see the assassination of Julius Caesar through Cleopatra's eyes. Yes, that's Carol O'Connor sticking the first dagger in. (How fitting that Casca would be played by Archie Bunker.)

There are some great scenes that unfortunately I couldn't find on YouTube, including the one where Cleopatra has a public spat with Marc Antony, who comes to her seeking grain and an alliance.

Cleopatra: Without a treaty of alliance with Egypt, you could not hold the territories under your command. True?

Antony: Possibly.

Cleopatra: Then Lord Antony, you come before me as a suppliant.

Antony: If you choose to regard me as such.

Cleopatra: I do. You will therefore assume the position of a suppliant before this throne. You will kneel.

Antony: (incredulous) I will what?

Cleopatra: On... your... knees.

Antony: You dare ask the proconsul of the Roman Empire...

Cleopatra: (pissed) I asked it of Julius Caesar. I demand it of you.

Elizabeth Taylor's performance did not earn her an Oscar nomination, as Rex Harrison's did. She was inconsistent and seemed lost with such a big script. Some of this might not be her fault, of course. After she saw the film, Taylor complained that her best work had been edited out when Daryl Zanuck insisted that it be cut down to a manageable four hours.

When the real Cleopatra first met Caesar, after sneaking into his room in a rolled up carpet, she was only nineteen years old. She died at age 39, legend says from a self inflicted asp bite. Yet, Elizabeth Taylor never seems to grow in the film. Her nineteen year old Queen acts the same as her 39 year old Queen. Only the costumes are different.

The most fantastic scene for me was the depiction of the Battle of Actium. Roman history buffs know this was the naval battle off the coast of Greece between the forces of Octavian and the forces of Marc Antony, which ended the Roman Civil War and signaled the end of the Roman Republic. Watching the movie, I knew the ships were all models, but it's such an unfamiliar scene I found it believable.

I gave Cleopatra four Netflix stars (really liked it). I did really like it, even while I wished it could have been better. It's just so big, it's an accomplishment getting through the whole thing. And I feel like all the effort they put into such an epic does count for something, although it is ultimately unsatisfying. I suspect that if they ever find and restore all that lost footage, the original six hour version will probably be a lot better.
_______________

* Never mind that the Arch of Titus was built a hundred years after Cleopatra's death.

Posted by: annika at 07:43 PM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 1310 words, total size 9 kb.

1 F.U.

Posted by: Casca at March 06, 2007 07:34 AM (Y7t14)

2 I own this movie. I watched it about two weeks ago with my wife and both daughters (aged 9 and . They all loved it. Frankly, we all like it a lot. I agree that Taylor and Burton aren't at their best in this one. But the film is so lavish it makes viewing something of an experience. My eldest daughter liked it better than Taylor and Burton in "The Taming of the Shrew" which we watched at Christmas.

Posted by: The Maximum Leader at March 06, 2007 07:59 AM (iJhG9)

3 Boy Liz was a fine piece of hairpie in her day!

Posted by: Radical Redneck at March 06, 2007 11:30 AM (VxchV)

4 For some odd reason, on my first reading I thought Redneck's comment said Liz was a "harpie" and thought "WTF?? Fine piece of harpie??". This quit caffeine thing just isn't working out right...

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 07, 2007 09:12 AM (xHyDY)

5 I thought it said "harpie", too, but that still leaves me confused about what's being said. I've never heard the word "hairpie". I'm going to look it up on the urban slang dictionary site.

Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 10:46 AM (u4CYb)

6 Well, I'm back. The definition of hair pie (spelled as two words on this site)is what I thought it might be. Gross. Men should have more respect for women and today's women need to remember respect for men. And I don't care if this sounds like the 42-year-old minister's daughter and mom that I am.

Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 10:53 AM (u4CYb)

7 Yes, and the shrubs should be trimmed once in a while too.

Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 01:47 PM (Y7t14)

8 If hair-free bodies are the aesthetic ideal then the need for trimming goes both ways; however, if letting nature take its course is the desirable aesthetic then let the garden grow.

Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 02:59 PM (u4CYb)

9 Joules, you're SUCH an extremist. I'm talking good grooming. Girls like it too. You need a few Laura Corn books.

Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 03:41 PM (2gORp)

10 Oh, I was just trying to think of something interesting and provocative to say on the blog. Nothing provokes like extremism. Seriously, don't you think it's a matter of individual preference?

Posted by: Joules at March 07, 2007 04:38 PM (u4CYb)

11 Not if you want to get laid regular.

Posted by: Casca at March 07, 2007 11:15 PM (2gORp)

12 Hehe... no use calling them "privates" anymore, huh? Not when someone's talking about the social impact of "well manicured" vs. "freely grown".

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 08, 2007 09:12 AM (xHyDY)

13 Good point. Another example of the freedom of the internet. I wouldn't likely be discussing this topic with strangers--unless I was with my husband's co-workers (he does background art for videogames) and conversation is pretty much a free-for-all once you get out of the office.

Posted by: Joules at March 08, 2007 09:48 AM (u4CYb)

14 I've never heard this slang before. I learn so much here!

Posted by: Mike C. at March 08, 2007 04:23 PM (86QII)

15 Try this link. This is where I look up everything I've never heard. I learn so much here and at the urban dictionary! http://www.urbandictionary.com/

Posted by: Joules at March 08, 2007 04:27 PM (u4CYb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

We all went to bed last night thinking Tyler Hansbrough's nose was bloody but unbroken. However, x-rays today confirm a non-displaced hairline fracture, which is surely painful but not as bad as it could have been.

I've watched the replay of the flagrant foul several times and it's really hard to decide what to think. Looking at the camera angle from behind the basket, Henderson's elbow easily looks intentional, and flagrant. From that viewpoint the way he twists his body appears unnecessary, unless he were trying to throw the elbow. It also looks almost like he's got a closed fist too. But when I look at the replay with the camera angle from the left of the key, it looks totally accidental. From that angle, Henderson's hand is open, and it does appear that his mid-air twist was an attempt to maintain his balance as he came down from his jump.

What do you think?

Posted by: annika at 03:23 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 163 words, total size 1 kb.

[What the hell is a carbon offset?]

Buy carbon offsets from me.

Even though I don't know what a carbon offset is, I know a moneymaker when I see one.

You, guilt ridden Annika's Journal reader that you are, can save the world! One book at a time. One DVD at a time. One moderately priced cheese sampler at a time.

First, a description of the problem.

All scientists agree that:

1. The Earth is warming.


2. It's your fault.


3. You can do something about it.


4. If you don't do something about it, the animals will die.


5. If you don't do something about it, the good rich people will have to move away from Malibu, Palm Beach and the Upper East Side.


6. Doing something about it should somehow involve penalizing the bad rich people like those evil corporation men.


7. Doing something about it will make you feel good, even if the world ends up getting destroyed anyway. Or not.

Now that you understand the problem (animals dying, good people moving), I'm sure you want to know how to help. After all, Al Gore recently said that all we need in order to solve the problem is in our very own hands, except for the will to act, which we also have. Which means that we have everything we need.

But although we have everything we need, we don't have everything we want. This might seem unrelated at first but if you keep reading you'll see that the two points are very related.

When I say we don't have everything we want, what I really mean is I don't have everything I want. For instance, I don't have:

• Hawaii Five-0 - The Complete First Season. I love this show, and I've been waiting for the DVD set to come out for years! Coincidentally, Hawaii is another place that will probably be destroyed because of you and your decadent lifestyle.


• A Storm of Swords by George R. R. Martin. I've been working my way through Martin's "Song of Fire and Ice" series, and I'm halfway through it. This is the next book in the series and I want it. By the way, a song of fire and ice is what you'll be singing if you don't get off your ass and do something to stop global warming.


• Two pounds of Spanish cheese. This item doesn't necessarily have anything to do with global warming, but who doesn't love Manchego cheese? I know I do. It's great with just a sprinkle of olive oil on it. Of course, if we don't stop global warming, all the olive trees will die.

To sum up what I'm trying to say, we have everything we need to stop global warming but I don't have everything I want.

So here's the deal. You can save the world and help stop global warming by buying me shit. Your purchases will help pay for carbon offsets that I will do, or make, or whatever. For every dollar you spend on me, I promise to reduce the carbon footprint of my apartment by turning off all non-essential electrical devices for one hour.* This could add up to some serious non-electrical usage depending on how many offsets you buy.

So save the planet — buy me stuff. If they knew how much you cared, I'm sure the polar bears would thank you. (Assuming they could talk, and wouldn't eat you first, which they probably would, but you get my point — it's for the animals.)
_______________

* Up to a maximum of 8 hours per day, weekends excluded. Non-essential electrical devices does not include refrigerators, clock radios, and any device that uses a clock or would be a hassle to unplug like my cable box.

Posted by: annika at 03:01 PM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 640 words, total size 6 kb.

Yes, I do.

Thanks, Mike.

Posted by: annika at 02:33 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 9 words, total size 1 kb.

1 While I agree with the sentiment, I'd hope that guy's flightplan has more detail than that.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus at March 05, 2007 06:27 AM (xHyDY)

2 As Annika walked down the street, she had to dodge the planes that careened toward her every few seconds....

Posted by: Ontario Emperor at March 05, 2007 01:44 PM (BSx9z)

3 Good point ElMondoHummus. But as you can see from the instruments, I was able to hold the plane somewhat straight and level, find a blank piece of paper and a Sharpie, scan for near misses and take the picture- all while only climbing 200 feet off my altitude. With pilotage like that who needs a flightplan? It's so easy I may start flying from the backseat where I can get more comfortable.

Posted by: Mike C. at March 08, 2007 04:06 PM (86QII)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I have already publicly pledged that I will not vote for John McCain in the unlikely event that he gets the Republican nomination. I stand by that pledge, but I'm adding this addendum: If the Republican Party is stupid enough to nominate McCain, I plan to write in "Preston Taylor Holmes."

Posted by: annika at 12:49 PM | Comments (23) | Add Comment
Post contains 59 words, total size 1 kb.

I thought they had a phone in the john, but when I picked it up it blew hot air at me.

Posted by: annika at 08:51 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.