Bees Love Truth

This is one of the reasons why I don't disrespect Ebert for stating that games aren't art. At least he's cool enough to post some nice, well-reasoned responses.

Although in among those there is this: "Guy gamers seem to think of the movie bits as interruptions in the real action of running around and shooting things. Girl gamers sometimes think of the video game part as an interruption in the movie."
Sigh. Don't we have a sisterhood here, female game people? Do we really need to do this shit? Make these stereotypical generalisations that don't help anyone?

Also, I'm so sick of people arguing about the definition of art.

Since I'm sort of paying attention to the Transformers movie (which I have not yet seen and probably will not pay for in the future), further hilarity can be found at the New Yorker. It doesn't live up to the marvelous deconstruction of Dude, Where's My Car? I read in I think Sight and Sound back in 2003 (which was just beautiful), but then LITTLE DOES. (I'm still trying to find a copy of that issue.) Anyway, this thing is a lovely example of exactly what you'd think; snooty and not-quite comprehending, but gamely trying to diss a crummy director who deserves it, for the wrong reasons.

New biopic about Edith Piaf. I had no idea about any of the details of her life (which seem to be pretty surprising), but if Ebert says the actress did a good job, then I am satisfied. I would like to see it.

YES I CAN POST

Here's a pretty neat article (though not terribly meaty) about people's ideas of their own 'life narratives'. I'm amused to find that my conscious mind is at about the level of a preadolescent in this regard:

[M]ost people do not begin to see themselves in the midst of a tale with a beginning, middle and eventual end until they are teenagers. “Younger kids see themselves in terms of broad, stable traits: ‘I like baseball but not soccer,’ ” said Kate McLean [.]

Are you guys better at this?
It's also unsettling, later, when it's brought up that people who see their life problems as being outside themselves (even psychological ones) have a better chance of overcoming them.

They described their problem, whether depression or an eating disorder, as coming on suddenly, as if out of nowhere. They characterized their difficulty as if it were an outside enemy, often giving it a name (the black dog, the walk of shame). And eventually they conquered it.

Yuckers, so very uncalled-for, Harry Potter IMAX poster.

(Here's the complete post for that, in case I'm erring in linking to a sub-page.)

The cartoonbrew crowd and such are getting kind of goofy over this article, which is unfortunate, in part. Okay, the 'self-perpetuating middle-aged losers' concept is amusing, but what is this crap about referential humor ruining the source material? If you're unable to deal with two different versions of a scene, one amusing and one not, you have larger problems than laughing at the severed horse head in the Godfather (also, what a poor example! Jebediah Springfield's head is only contextually a stand-in for the horse head; if these putative idiot viewers are 1. still watching season one of the Simpsons, and 2. able to make the conceptual leap with really only atmospheric and timing cues for help, then they are probably decently well-educated in film/television and will appreciate the reference).

Admittedly, Family Guy has taken this to an obnoxious extent, which the article does address (substituting 'recognition' for 'humor') in a nice way. I can't even watch Family Guy anymore, even though I used to sometimes watch it for the One Legitimately Funny Bit per episode. However, at least in the first twelve or thirteen seasons (can't vouch for later ones; stopped watching) of the Simpsons, referential humor is usually used as a layer over an already amusing concept. At the very least, it's an entertaining way of hitting a plot point, which is generally not Family Guy's way.

I would also like to point out the egregious 'THINK OF THE CHILDREN' stinger at the end of the article. You know you're reaching when you're bringing that up.

Logos and N0wak lunk to this Tarantino debate between a Lover and a Hater. I of course side almost entirely with the Hater (who makes many points I've been trying for years to make about various things), although I do really think Reservoir Dogs is a well-realized film. Haven't seen Grindhouse though. If, as Hater says, the redeeming factor is mostly that Tarantino is Serious About Thinking Chicks are Awesome, then, uh... yeah. Not terribly compelling.
Oh, and the Simpsons' cultural value is not entirely in its parodic regurgitation, it's the synthesis. Jeez.

Pretty neat essay about popular music in Rear Window. Good stuff.

(Actually, this is ancillary, but it's funny to see what people think Bart said instead of 'St. Swithin's Day'. 'Saint Wyvens day'? 'Thanksswivings day'? Dang.)

How can you attack American Beauty for the completely wrong reasons? It wasn't the surface detail that was annoying, it's the fact that the layer underneath it was only marginally more thought-out. Seriously, buying a sports car is character development? The plastic bag, though, I could watch a whole movie of that.
And sincerely. I will fight anyone who says 2001 is incomprehensible or boring. FIGHT. Unless your excuse involves never having seen a movie before and not really getting what this strange too-long jokeless sitcom thing that's shot in 70mm is all about.
(Not one of the Overrated Movies, but we just watched Barry Lyndon, finally, and it hasn't got a dull frame in it. It did however make me realise that Shelly Duvall is the true form of any leading woman in a Kubrick movie.)

Schwa linked to this guy's writeup of the Big Lebowski, and it's pretty awesome. I had a similar experience with the movie, kind of looking at it askance after I saw it the first couple of times, not really having it brought home for me. But then it started clicking in later viewings, though I wasn't as astute as this fellow in my assessment. Ah, the Coens. Is there anything you can't do?
I ran across a book on the-making-of a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't pick it up because it was like 15 bucks in a used bookstore. It wasn't terribly in-depth, it was just sort of a behind-the-scenes kind of piece; although it did have some great costume design illustrations in the back. I probably should have bought it, shouldn't I.