It may be time for such a charity.
If you can’t get yourself to Asia to live the fabulous life of, say an English teacher, just check out one of the over 1000 videos Simon and Martina have made in which they share their discoveries of their old home Korea and their new home Tokyo.
Warning! After watching this I wanted to buy a yukata.
After watching this you’ll want to eat Japanese ice cream. Hard to come by in most places, but a lot cheaper than a yukata.
Here’s some good advice on the protocol of Korean spas, which are worth a visit if you’re in Korea.
Written by David Kamp, The Film Snob’s Dictionary is a fun little reference book with a tongue-in-cheek tone that can help readers learn to b.s. their way through an erudite conversation on film or just help readers learn a little more about filmmakers and terms related to film.
Here are a few entries, chosen randomly, to give you a taste of the book:
Film Threat. Surprisingly buoyant, unsmug Web ‘zine (originally a print magazine) devoted to independent film. Where snobs go to read fulsome appreciations of Sam Raimi and interviews of such Queens of the B’s as Debbie Rochon and Tina Krause. (N.B. The website was bought and taken offline so where will we read these articles about people I never heard of?)
Mankiewicz, Herman. Gruff, whiskey-soaked, cigar chomping, old-school screenwriter par excellence (1807-1953)who bolted from his comfy perch at the Algonquin Round Table to write titles for silent films and screenplays for talkies, famously summoning his friend Ven Hecht west with te line “Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition are idiots.” A dab hand at many genres–he wrote or cowrote Dinner at Eight, the Marx Brothers’ Duck Soup and The Pride of the Yankees . . . .
Third Row, The. The only appropriate place for a true cinephile to sit, as per the dictum of the late snob overlord and belle-lettrist Susan Sontag. Though the third row is said to provide the ideal perch from which to comfortably take in the MISE-EN-SCENE while unobstructed by fellow audience members, New York’s Anthology Film Archives, in 1970, catered to the socio-pathology of Film Snobs by opening its Invisible Cinema . . . .
Sacha Guitry created another light-hearted film with The Pearls of the Crown. In this movie, which Guitry wrote, directed and stars in, a French writer, a man works for the Pope and an English royal assistant, search for three, rare, matching pearls that have gone missing since the 16th century. As the three men hunt down these pearls, they discover the truth in the lives of historical figures like King Henry VIII. Throughout the film, the audience is treated to wry humour. Here Guitry, who’s something of a French Noel Coward, plays for roles: two kings, a writer and one more character.
The film is charming and you’ll even learn a bit about history. Good when you’re looking for light entertainment and don’t mind subtitles.
My new favorite comedy is Moone Boy created by Chris O’Dowd and Nick Vincent Murphy. In this Irish sitcom import, Martin Moone (David Rawles) is a twelve year old with a full grown imaginary friend named Sean. Martin lives with his shambolic family, which consists of his father who runs a sign shop, his mother who becomes Weight Wishers counselor and three older sisters who don’t like Martin at all.
Martin needs someone in his corner and Sean helps him navigate the slings and arrows of school, romance, and family life. Set in 1989-90s, Moone Boy reminds me of The Wonder Years. It’s got wit and heart. The acting, particularly Martin’s performance, is natural and the pace is brisk. Each episode, available on Hulu.coma and PBS in some areas, wrings the most from every story. In the two seasons I’ve seen every episode delights.
Friskie’s cat food has a few ads on YouTube that are just hysterically fun. I laughed till I cried and I’m not a big cat fan.
Let me know if you think they’re funny.
I’d never watched Charlie Chaplin’s City Lights, or perhaps any Chaplin film, before. I remember being shown some silent film as a child in some group setting and being bored to tears. That feeling ran deep, though the specifics – who was in the film, or what it was about faded fast. Since I’m half way through my year of watching one “old” i.e. pre 1960 movie a week, I thought it’s high time to watch Chaplin.
After seeing and loving Harold Lloyd’s Safety Last released by the Criterion Collection with the enriching commentary, I thought I could like City Lights. I was right. What a delightful, charming, poignant film! Chaplin plays his signature Tramp, who I think everyone in the West with a pulse has seen in some form. As the film opens some long winded politician is bloviating at a ceremony to unveil a statue about progress and prosperity. When the drape is removed, we see the Tramp asleep in one of the figure’s laps. He scrambles to get out of the way, always desiring not to bother anyone, but in so doing gets more entangled and almost loses his pants. It’s high comedy, but still works. What’s more Chaplin is definitely satirizing the politicians and society that honors these values while blind to those left behind or harmed by “progress” and whom “prosperity” has overlooked.
Soon the Tramp meets and falls in love with a girl who’s blind, who sells flowers on the street. She mistakes him for a millionaire and this is the main plot. After impressing the flower girl, the Tramp runs into a crazy, distraught millionaire whose life he saves. The friendship between the eccentric millionaire and the Tramp is mercurial. When the millionaire’s drunk, all’s well. When he sobers up, he rejects the Tramp, time and again.
The film’s commentary helped me note a lot in the film that I would have overlooked. The political themes, the cast, and the history (how on average Chaplin did 38 takes for every scene in what he himself dubbed a “neurotic” quest for perfection).
The film came out in 1931 when sound had been around for awhile. Chaplin, the commentator states, didn’t think sound really added much to films and that it took away some of film’s subtleties. While there’s plenty of slapstick, I can see Chaplin’s point. By having to rely on pantomime, the actors have to do more with a look or action. Also, Chaplin’s films did well all over the world. He felt that if the audience heard his accent some wouldn’t like his work as much. It’s a valid point as when I watched, I projected an American accent on to the characters.
The film is delightful and succeeds in providing humor and pathos often right on top of each other.