Hey all,
The wonderful vocalist Beth Hirsh sent me a comment regarding a remix I did for her of her latest song; here are her comments:
"Dear BetteD,
Great Originality! This is the first time I have ever heard this genre done with my music. Thank you so much for introducing me to new sounds and flavors :) Great creativity here. Well done. Beth H."
Now I ask you, dear reader: Is this what you want in 2008 or do you want the standard stuff being given to you?
Bullets, Lipstick and Music,
-BetteD
Bette Dillinger: Fevered Distractions. This is a Narcissist Free Zone (NFZ). Basically, a blog about music, madness, goofy observations and fiber from an artist who is about the art and not the craven marketing. You know you want to visit. See you soon!
Sorry, Only Size I Could Get To Go On Blogger
Sunday, April 27, 2008
They Shoot Horses, Don't They? Review
"They Shoot Horses, Don’t They?": Review
Rating System:
0: Don't Waste Time from your Life for This
1: Barely Watchable
2: A Glimmer of Promise Amid the Fecal Matter
3: Worth Watching
4: Almost a Masterpiece, But Work Was Needed
5: A Movie for the Ages
Jaysus, was I disappointed in this movie! You have Jane Fonda, Sidney Pollack and an interesting concept based on a well known novel from the time. This movie is set in the Depression era 1930s, and focuses on a dancing marathon for an alleged 1500 US. What social comments could have been made! However, ultimately this movie was even more dissatisfying than "Charles Manson Superstar", simply because it had so much potential with such an incredible director and actress given so little to work with.
Fonda goes through a change in the beginning, when she is forced to choose a drifter named Robert after her previous partner was deemed "medically unacceptable". One also sees a man who doesn't look very prepared (large girth combined with a mature age), a delusional "actress" who thinks she is going to make it big by winning the contest, and a pregnant girl who one knows at first glance is headed out the door soon. The eerie "Announcer" states the only important thing is "the spectacle" for the paying customers, and has the pregnant girl sing a song at the bandstand, a typically callous move that is crassly meant to garner maximum exploitation.....doesn't remind anyone of any other era, eh?
Things get worse when the Announcer decides that the group must race around the dance hall and the last three couples are done with the challenge. I am not going to spoil too much, but obviously certain people can't make it. Jane Fonda and her partner are left, but the ending is so over the top that it is a huge disappointment. In these type of horrific circumstances, one doesn't need shocking conclusions. The actual reality is all too horrific. That is the main thing this movie had NO clue about.
If Fonda had been allowed to cynically comment more on her surroundings and the incredible directing of Pollack was focused on to the exclusion of the rather tedious stories of the other players (it would have been more powerful to focus on the entire group, not just a few parallel plot elements, and this would have driven the societal issues more brazenly to the fore) I could see a masterpiece in this movie. Now it is only known for the line that is the title. A sad film for all involved.
Trivia: Marilyn Monroe was originally cast in the Fonda part before her death.
2/5 Stars
Pollack, director
(1969)
Rating System:
0: Don't Waste Time from your Life for This
1: Barely Watchable
2: A Glimmer of Promise Amid the Fecal Matter
3: Worth Watching
4: Almost a Masterpiece, But Work Was Needed
5: A Movie for the Ages
Jaysus, was I disappointed in this movie! You have Jane Fonda, Sidney Pollack and an interesting concept based on a well known novel from the time. This movie is set in the Depression era 1930s, and focuses on a dancing marathon for an alleged 1500 US. What social comments could have been made! However, ultimately this movie was even more dissatisfying than "Charles Manson Superstar", simply because it had so much potential with such an incredible director and actress given so little to work with.
Fonda goes through a change in the beginning, when she is forced to choose a drifter named Robert after her previous partner was deemed "medically unacceptable". One also sees a man who doesn't look very prepared (large girth combined with a mature age), a delusional "actress" who thinks she is going to make it big by winning the contest, and a pregnant girl who one knows at first glance is headed out the door soon. The eerie "Announcer" states the only important thing is "the spectacle" for the paying customers, and has the pregnant girl sing a song at the bandstand, a typically callous move that is crassly meant to garner maximum exploitation.....doesn't remind anyone of any other era, eh?
Things get worse when the Announcer decides that the group must race around the dance hall and the last three couples are done with the challenge. I am not going to spoil too much, but obviously certain people can't make it. Jane Fonda and her partner are left, but the ending is so over the top that it is a huge disappointment. In these type of horrific circumstances, one doesn't need shocking conclusions. The actual reality is all too horrific. That is the main thing this movie had NO clue about.
If Fonda had been allowed to cynically comment more on her surroundings and the incredible directing of Pollack was focused on to the exclusion of the rather tedious stories of the other players (it would have been more powerful to focus on the entire group, not just a few parallel plot elements, and this would have driven the societal issues more brazenly to the fore) I could see a masterpiece in this movie. Now it is only known for the line that is the title. A sad film for all involved.
Trivia: Marilyn Monroe was originally cast in the Fonda part before her death.
2/5 Stars
Pollack, director
(1969)
Monday, April 21, 2008
Sunday, April 20, 2008
"Charles Manson Superstar": Review
Rating System:
0: Don't Waste Time from your Life for This
1: Barely Watchable
2: A Glimmer of Promise Amid the Fecal Matter
3: Worth Watching
4: Almost a Masterpiece, But Work Was Needed
5: A Movie for the Ages
So, what hasn't been said about Charles Manson and his bunch of crazy followers? Not a whole Hell of alot, but this movie boasts an actual interview with Charlie himself. That really was the selling point for me, as I think of him as a dog in a cage who has so much time to focus on his stories that one could be in for a very revealing look at this "Satanic" man who does indeed perceive himself as both "Satan and God".
Unforunately, the narrator of the film, whom I later learned was associated with Anton LeVey (LeVey's daughter narrates the "female voices", another primitive and distracting element), feels his words are too important to not drown out or edit many of Manson's strange rants. For example: just when Manson gets out of his chair and pronounces himself as the incarnation of the God Abraxus, the movie cuts to photos of Abraxus and the narrator's sedated voice over, always returning to the "theme" of Anton LeVey.
This is beyond annoying for someone who expects the "Charlie Manson Show" (and what is more irritating yet is that Manson seemed ready to go with his carefully crafted lunacy; as he stated, he has nothing to lose) or some speculation regarding Manson's enduring place in popular Western culture (I expected something like this from the title).
Though this is considered a primitive but important documentary since it has Manson himself in it, I would say it is a total failure. The film makers got permission to meet Manson, they film him for hours, but only use that footage when they need to connect Manson to Hitler, Satanism or the correctional system. There is no real look at Manson, except through a frosted over filter.
Nothing new is asked or said: Why does Manson still get attention? Let's hear about his actual biography, not just bits and pieces to the effect of "he was a product of institutions". Or just put the damn camera on him and let him go off on his tangents against everything. Like I said, Charlie talked a mile a minute, but the editors felt they had to splice the footage with tedious "artistic" conclusions involving their agenda.
Bottom line is that the movie reinforces Charles Manson's own assertions about distortion and manipulation in society. That's not something ya wanna encourage when you are making a film about a sociopath. Since these film makers actually gained access to Manson, I will give them a 1 for effort.
"Charles Manson Superstar"
1989
1 Star
0: Don't Waste Time from your Life for This
1: Barely Watchable
2: A Glimmer of Promise Amid the Fecal Matter
3: Worth Watching
4: Almost a Masterpiece, But Work Was Needed
5: A Movie for the Ages
So, what hasn't been said about Charles Manson and his bunch of crazy followers? Not a whole Hell of alot, but this movie boasts an actual interview with Charlie himself. That really was the selling point for me, as I think of him as a dog in a cage who has so much time to focus on his stories that one could be in for a very revealing look at this "Satanic" man who does indeed perceive himself as both "Satan and God".
Unforunately, the narrator of the film, whom I later learned was associated with Anton LeVey (LeVey's daughter narrates the "female voices", another primitive and distracting element), feels his words are too important to not drown out or edit many of Manson's strange rants. For example: just when Manson gets out of his chair and pronounces himself as the incarnation of the God Abraxus, the movie cuts to photos of Abraxus and the narrator's sedated voice over, always returning to the "theme" of Anton LeVey.
This is beyond annoying for someone who expects the "Charlie Manson Show" (and what is more irritating yet is that Manson seemed ready to go with his carefully crafted lunacy; as he stated, he has nothing to lose) or some speculation regarding Manson's enduring place in popular Western culture (I expected something like this from the title).
Though this is considered a primitive but important documentary since it has Manson himself in it, I would say it is a total failure. The film makers got permission to meet Manson, they film him for hours, but only use that footage when they need to connect Manson to Hitler, Satanism or the correctional system. There is no real look at Manson, except through a frosted over filter.
Nothing new is asked or said: Why does Manson still get attention? Let's hear about his actual biography, not just bits and pieces to the effect of "he was a product of institutions". Or just put the damn camera on him and let him go off on his tangents against everything. Like I said, Charlie talked a mile a minute, but the editors felt they had to splice the footage with tedious "artistic" conclusions involving their agenda.
Bottom line is that the movie reinforces Charles Manson's own assertions about distortion and manipulation in society. That's not something ya wanna encourage when you are making a film about a sociopath. Since these film makers actually gained access to Manson, I will give them a 1 for effort.
"Charles Manson Superstar"
1989
1 Star
Sunday, April 13, 2008
"Mondo Cane": Review
"Mondo Cane": Review
13 Apr 2008, 19:23
I remember seeing the film "Mondo Cane" a few years ago, and, being with a group of friends, we soon grew tired of it, as most felt it was staged, yadda yadda yadda, and I never made it through the whole movie.
However, I watched it again this week and thought that it had real sociological value that I had not noticed before.
Literally translated as "A Dog's Life", the opening scene is one the best in the film. A dog is struggling as it is being led through a kennel, full of snapping angry canines. He is then pushed in to join the rest of the animals....could he represent us? Not our civilized Western culture! Perish the thought.
Of course, the whole "Mondo" series as well as its siblings like "Faces of Death" rely on exploitation and outrageously staged "gross-out" scenes. Interestingly, though, "Mondo Cane" uses this to its advantage. The makers of the film have an uncredited narrator throughout who comments wryly on the unifying elements in our primal human drives that transcend culture: sex and death.
We see a pathetic old woman burying her dog in a lush ceremony in Los Angeles. The sad humans in the graveyard fill one with a sense of sadness and confusion over how "civilized" we actually are if humans at the end of their life cling so desperately to an animal, their human contact long since evaporated. Then we see dogs being placed in cages for food in another, more "exotic" location in the world. Which is more grotesque?
There are several other scenes that contrast the "Western" world with the "primitive"....but we are continually forced to wonder which is which. Are the "primitive" women who are "fattened" for fertility less intellectually advanced than the "civilized" women of the West who frantically trying to lose weight by leaning against bizarre machinery? Are the sailors who chase the pretty woman more "advanced" than the tribal ritual of "primitive" women chasing men?
It is sad this film spawned such alot of horrid movies meant for fourteen year old boys who like to be grossed out by autopsies, etc. Yeah, I like to be grossed out once in awhile, but I prefer to be forced to think about these images as well, which successive films in this genre have not done.
Also, everyone is aware very early on that the "Mondo Cane" world is a staged world.....it states it on the DVD. However, the "Mondo Cane" reality is sometimes more true than our own everyday belief systems allow us to concede to....
"Mondo Cane" 1962
Jacopetti, Prosperi
13 Apr 2008, 19:23
I remember seeing the film "Mondo Cane" a few years ago, and, being with a group of friends, we soon grew tired of it, as most felt it was staged, yadda yadda yadda, and I never made it through the whole movie.
However, I watched it again this week and thought that it had real sociological value that I had not noticed before.
Literally translated as "A Dog's Life", the opening scene is one the best in the film. A dog is struggling as it is being led through a kennel, full of snapping angry canines. He is then pushed in to join the rest of the animals....could he represent us? Not our civilized Western culture! Perish the thought.
Of course, the whole "Mondo" series as well as its siblings like "Faces of Death" rely on exploitation and outrageously staged "gross-out" scenes. Interestingly, though, "Mondo Cane" uses this to its advantage. The makers of the film have an uncredited narrator throughout who comments wryly on the unifying elements in our primal human drives that transcend culture: sex and death.
We see a pathetic old woman burying her dog in a lush ceremony in Los Angeles. The sad humans in the graveyard fill one with a sense of sadness and confusion over how "civilized" we actually are if humans at the end of their life cling so desperately to an animal, their human contact long since evaporated. Then we see dogs being placed in cages for food in another, more "exotic" location in the world. Which is more grotesque?
There are several other scenes that contrast the "Western" world with the "primitive"....but we are continually forced to wonder which is which. Are the "primitive" women who are "fattened" for fertility less intellectually advanced than the "civilized" women of the West who frantically trying to lose weight by leaning against bizarre machinery? Are the sailors who chase the pretty woman more "advanced" than the tribal ritual of "primitive" women chasing men?
It is sad this film spawned such alot of horrid movies meant for fourteen year old boys who like to be grossed out by autopsies, etc. Yeah, I like to be grossed out once in awhile, but I prefer to be forced to think about these images as well, which successive films in this genre have not done.
Also, everyone is aware very early on that the "Mondo Cane" world is a staged world.....it states it on the DVD. However, the "Mondo Cane" reality is sometimes more true than our own everyday belief systems allow us to concede to....
"Mondo Cane" 1962
Jacopetti, Prosperi
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Let's EVOLVE beyond.......
A dear person by the name of Jilly directed me to a website after my post about strong women. When I saw the site, I was again taken aback, but on the Web we all become desensitized to bizarre behavior.
I like playing armchair psychologist, so indulge me for a minute. My dream background for this man at "crazylarry.com" (sic): hmmmm... Mummy wasn't there enough and his wife was not a sufficient enough replacement. He also had a disasterous time courting women, and, when he found out how "babies were created" he fell into a fit that could only be silenced by Thorazine. Dad wore a club tie and had a firm handshake, but also wasn't there enough. But he mustn't replace Daddy; the resultant guilt can be seen at "crazylarry.com"(sic, but more appropriate). I will make some comments thoughout a piece he has written, since I worked in the system for a few years.
"Quite simply, all my convoluted notions ended up failing miserably somewhere along the line; whereas their solution was very simple and, if you followed the various pathways that stemmed from it, it seemed mostly to lead to an enormous amount of good.
It is this.
Fathers are in charge. Full stop.
BD: Yes, there is a famous study by the Frankfurt School about how Patriarchal dominance breeds fascism, and sent Hitler to the top. So, you are working overtime with this solution.
And if the marriage breaks down, the woman leaves.
BD: You mean YOU had to leave, right? So you want to take it out on "women". Yawn.
And she leaves everything.
BD: To go to.......where?
The fathers are responsible for any children. They are responsible for their welfare and for their behaviour.
BD: Ironically, you are the one who seems full of hatred for both genders. I am sure you think the father should work full time as well as now care exclusively for children. That wouldn't cause any of the societal problems you so lament, eh?
It all sounds really draconian and unfair, doesn't it?
BD: Well, draconian always implies a method to the madness, and in this situation you have made it harder on men than women because of your own issues. Poor usage of the word, and I hope you learn to love yourself more, Harry dear.
"But if you think deeply about the strengths, the weaknesses, the natures and the predilections of men and women, and of how they tend to relate to each other, to their families and to the world outside, this draconian solution does seem to pan out rather well. And it seems likely to generate the minimum of problems both for individuals and for society as a whole."
BD:"Predilections"? Society is created by a populace, and the industrial age created the nuclear family.
Maybe if we EVOLVED beyond thinking about "innate predilections" MEN AND WOMEN would enjoy equality.
That was the point of this post. I feel sorry for someone like Larry (sic). I certainly hope he doesn't have a daughter.
Thank you Jilly for pointing out this site.
Bullets, lipstick and music,
Bette D
I like playing armchair psychologist, so indulge me for a minute. My dream background for this man at "crazylarry.com" (sic): hmmmm... Mummy wasn't there enough and his wife was not a sufficient enough replacement. He also had a disasterous time courting women, and, when he found out how "babies were created" he fell into a fit that could only be silenced by Thorazine. Dad wore a club tie and had a firm handshake, but also wasn't there enough. But he mustn't replace Daddy; the resultant guilt can be seen at "crazylarry.com"(sic, but more appropriate). I will make some comments thoughout a piece he has written, since I worked in the system for a few years.
"Quite simply, all my convoluted notions ended up failing miserably somewhere along the line; whereas their solution was very simple and, if you followed the various pathways that stemmed from it, it seemed mostly to lead to an enormous amount of good.
It is this.
Fathers are in charge. Full stop.
BD: Yes, there is a famous study by the Frankfurt School about how Patriarchal dominance breeds fascism, and sent Hitler to the top. So, you are working overtime with this solution.
And if the marriage breaks down, the woman leaves.
BD: You mean YOU had to leave, right? So you want to take it out on "women". Yawn.
And she leaves everything.
BD: To go to.......where?
The fathers are responsible for any children. They are responsible for their welfare and for their behaviour.
BD: Ironically, you are the one who seems full of hatred for both genders. I am sure you think the father should work full time as well as now care exclusively for children. That wouldn't cause any of the societal problems you so lament, eh?
It all sounds really draconian and unfair, doesn't it?
BD: Well, draconian always implies a method to the madness, and in this situation you have made it harder on men than women because of your own issues. Poor usage of the word, and I hope you learn to love yourself more, Harry dear.
"But if you think deeply about the strengths, the weaknesses, the natures and the predilections of men and women, and of how they tend to relate to each other, to their families and to the world outside, this draconian solution does seem to pan out rather well. And it seems likely to generate the minimum of problems both for individuals and for society as a whole."
BD:"Predilections"? Society is created by a populace, and the industrial age created the nuclear family.
Maybe if we EVOLVED beyond thinking about "innate predilections" MEN AND WOMEN would enjoy equality.
That was the point of this post. I feel sorry for someone like Larry (sic). I certainly hope he doesn't have a daughter.
Thank you Jilly for pointing out this site.
Bullets, lipstick and music,
Bette D
Happy Birthday Bette Davis
Just a note that April 5th was the incredible Bette Davis' 100th birthday. I wish I could say that I see a contemporary actress that resembles her incredible fiery performances. The last one I can remember is Kathleen Turner, but she is now firmly planted on Broadway from what I have read. I know many men and some women reading this might be thinking "BETTE DAVIS? KATHLEEN TURNER WAS HOT!" Well, watch Bette in "Of Human Bondage" and tell me you wouldn't be drawn in......she was quite striking when she was younger. Their styles of acting is what I am really comparing, anyway.
There are so many great movies with Bette....I love her great work "Mrs Skeffington", "Of Human Bondage", "All About Eve", "The Little Foxes" but I think she was so talented she could work with a camp concept like "The Star" and come out looking like one. And "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" has got to be one of my favorite popcorn films ever.
"Blanche, your din-din is ready!"
Bullets, lipstick and music,
Bette D
There are so many great movies with Bette....I love her great work "Mrs Skeffington", "Of Human Bondage", "All About Eve", "The Little Foxes" but I think she was so talented she could work with a camp concept like "The Star" and come out looking like one. And "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane" has got to be one of my favorite popcorn films ever.
"Blanche, your din-din is ready!"
Bullets, lipstick and music,
Bette D
To the Dear Poster Who Made a Comment
Under my music post someone made a kind comment about their desire to make music. This damn thing erased it when the widget was installed.
So here is my response:
It's great you are making music, and are thinking about putting three or four songs together for the Web. I would strongly recommend going to a "music site" first so you can get some feedback once you start recording. You also expressed some uncertainty about recording, so I suggest you look into some free software to help you get started like Cakewalk. It is a lifesaver sometimes! Just do a Google and you are there, man.
The worst thing mistake I have seen people make when transitioning to the Web is to post something on youtube, because, well, just look at the comments section. People think they can hide behind their webmasques very easily and say weird shit. Music sites usually have more respectful people.
Bullets, Lipstick and Music,
Bette Dillinger
So here is my response:
It's great you are making music, and are thinking about putting three or four songs together for the Web. I would strongly recommend going to a "music site" first so you can get some feedback once you start recording. You also expressed some uncertainty about recording, so I suggest you look into some free software to help you get started like Cakewalk. It is a lifesaver sometimes! Just do a Google and you are there, man.
The worst thing mistake I have seen people make when transitioning to the Web is to post something on youtube, because, well, just look at the comments section. People think they can hide behind their webmasques very easily and say weird shit. Music sites usually have more respectful people.
Bullets, Lipstick and Music,
Bette Dillinger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)