So yesterday I got up and cycling was on. I rolled over to watching US Women's soccer against the villainous Colombian team, watched that whole match, then watched US Women's Volleyball against South Korea, and at some point was watching Norway play France in Women's Team Handball (it's like mini-Lacrosse with no stick. Just hands.). Then Primetime arrived and I wound up watching beach volleyball, swimming, men's gymnastics and concluded the viewing day after midnight watching women under 110 pounds lifting tremendous amounts of weight over their heads.
A few observations:
Film. Comics. Sci-Fi. Superheroes. Pulp. Noir. History. Superman. 20th Century Archaeology.
Sunday, July 29, 2012
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Enemy Ace and Why You Don't Take Your Puppy Up into the Killer Skies
I finally got a copy of Star Spangled War Stories #148. It's a reader copy, not in terrific shape, but I can make a check mark on that particular collection. And it's not like I don't have a copy of that story in both Showcase Presents and Archives formats.
You guys know I am firmly in corner of Von Hammer, The Enemy Ace. Yes, even as he's shooting down our friends from England and France in plane-to-plane combat, I'm still thrilling to his adventures as he takes his tri-wing Fokker up into The Killer Skies.
You guys know I am firmly in corner of Von Hammer, The Enemy Ace. Yes, even as he's shooting down our friends from England and France in plane-to-plane combat, I'm still thrilling to his adventures as he takes his tri-wing Fokker up into The Killer Skies.
Signal Watch Watches: Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
Good God, y'all.
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) is basically one long exercise in "Jane Russell or Marilyn Monroe?", and no one can answer that question honestly without risking a trip into madness.
Just when the answer seems "well, clearly Monroe" (she is, after all, Monroe), you kind of have to take a moment to pause and reconsider. Because, well, Jane Russell. Just when Monroe seals it up with "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"... Russell does her own version.
I suspect the pitch meeting went like this:
Producer: It's two singing and dancing girls! Leggy! One is a gold-digger, the other doesn't care about money! They get on a boat! There's singing! There's dancing! There's showgirl outfits! It ends with a wedding!
Studio Head: Meh.
Producer: We cast Monroe and Jane Russell!
Studio Head: Can we see either of them soaking wet?
Producer: We're throwing Russell in a pool RIGHT NOW!
Studio Head: You've got yourself a picture!
Sure, it's a throwback. But it's a movie that knows exactly what it's got on it's hands and doesn't make any bones about it - made in an era where women could be portrayed as knowing what they had without having to pretend to be unaware or be cast as the villain, and do it all with a wink. It's a movie about a diamond-digging Monroe and her pal for whom money doesn't mean much on a cross-the-pond trip to France surrounded by men. Hi-jinx ensue and a number of pretty good musical numbers.
The movie never equates beautiful with brainless. Perhaps Monroe's Lorelei is a bit clueless or off in dreamland, but she has a certain brand of whimsical genius that's the ying to yang of the streetwise, smart girl who sees all the angles, played by Russell. Both are great and really, really funny. As is a lot of the supporting cast.
I hadn't seen the movie since high school, which means I hadn't seen it since I taped it off AMC back when the network was American Movie Classics. Seeing the movie in HD on a TV screen that begins to do it justice really does show what color film was doing during the era and what Hollywood was bringing to the big screen with design and smart use of palette. Of course the film is the work of the great Howard Hawks showing an eye for comedy and getting the hell out of the way when it comes to the musical numbers.
It's a fluffy, fun comedy and a classic for a reason. Maybe not as quirky as you might hope for, but the dialog is refined to a razor's edge. Good stuff.
And, of course, our leads.
Do I know why gentlemen supposedly prefer blondes? No sir, I do not. The movie never actually explains the title.
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) is basically one long exercise in "Jane Russell or Marilyn Monroe?", and no one can answer that question honestly without risking a trip into madness.
Just when the answer seems "well, clearly Monroe" (she is, after all, Monroe), you kind of have to take a moment to pause and reconsider. Because, well, Jane Russell. Just when Monroe seals it up with "Diamonds are a Girl's Best Friend"... Russell does her own version.
I suspect the pitch meeting went like this:
Producer: It's two singing and dancing girls! Leggy! One is a gold-digger, the other doesn't care about money! They get on a boat! There's singing! There's dancing! There's showgirl outfits! It ends with a wedding!
Studio Head: Meh.
Producer: We cast Monroe and Jane Russell!
Studio Head: Can we see either of them soaking wet?
Producer: We're throwing Russell in a pool RIGHT NOW!
Studio Head: You've got yourself a picture!
Sure, it's a throwback. But it's a movie that knows exactly what it's got on it's hands and doesn't make any bones about it - made in an era where women could be portrayed as knowing what they had without having to pretend to be unaware or be cast as the villain, and do it all with a wink. It's a movie about a diamond-digging Monroe and her pal for whom money doesn't mean much on a cross-the-pond trip to France surrounded by men. Hi-jinx ensue and a number of pretty good musical numbers.
The movie never equates beautiful with brainless. Perhaps Monroe's Lorelei is a bit clueless or off in dreamland, but she has a certain brand of whimsical genius that's the ying to yang of the streetwise, smart girl who sees all the angles, played by Russell. Both are great and really, really funny. As is a lot of the supporting cast.
I hadn't seen the movie since high school, which means I hadn't seen it since I taped it off AMC back when the network was American Movie Classics. Seeing the movie in HD on a TV screen that begins to do it justice really does show what color film was doing during the era and what Hollywood was bringing to the big screen with design and smart use of palette. Of course the film is the work of the great Howard Hawks showing an eye for comedy and getting the hell out of the way when it comes to the musical numbers.
It's a fluffy, fun comedy and a classic for a reason. Maybe not as quirky as you might hope for, but the dialog is refined to a razor's edge. Good stuff.
And, of course, our leads.
Do I know why gentlemen supposedly prefer blondes? No sir, I do not. The movie never actually explains the title.
Friday, July 27, 2012
Happy Birthday to Judy, the Mother-in-Law
 |
| we're pretty sure this captures the spirit of our own Judy McB |
Happy birthday to my mother-in-law and enabler, Judy.
I know all the old stereo-types about meddling or annoying mother-in-laws, but since Day 1, I've been pretty fond of Jamie and Doug's mom. She's a lot of fun, totally supportive of Jamie and myself, and where 95% of mother-in-laws would (at best) just let the whole comics thing slide, Judy sometimes seems to enjoy my superhero collection in her own way and even adds to it from time to time.
She's a world traveler, a naturalist, a birder, and a small time gambler. What's not to like?
Happy B-Day, Judy! We'll see you this evening.
 |
| The in-laws, Dick & Judy, enjoy some BBQ at Central Texas' famous "The Salt Lick" |
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Gleiberman's article in EW on Pop Culture and The Dissipation of Empathy
NathanC posted a link to an Owen Gleiberman editorial on the Entertainment Weekly website in which Gleiberman, a longtime film critic/ reviewer for EW discusses his perceptions of the obsessions of pop culture and how they come back in mutated form in incidents like the one in Aurora, Colorado.
It's not a huge secret around our house that I don't hold Gleiberman's taste in very high regard, and you can pretty much count on his befuddlement when it comes to genre pictures (Jamie has had a subscription to EW since around 1995, so we've had opportunity to discuss the man's writing).
I won't say I don't echo some of Gleiberman's thoughts, but the more I thought about the article and it's constant accusations, backtracking on the accusations with a "I'm just saying" statement - the more I found it a bit disturbing.
I encourage you to pop over and read the article on your own. It's free.
Let me clear the decks first and roll my eyes at Gleiberman's creeping assertions about fanboy culture and his ability to finally have a way to express his discomfort with the phenomena. Exasperation with sci-fi/ comics/ fantasy and the culture around them has been an ongoing theme in his reviews for a decade. He basically is both aware of and flustered by the fact that these people will not listen to reason when he can demonstrably prove his favorite Meryl Streep movie is of more value than Serenity. So, in a way, I'm not all that surprised by the path he goes down here. I'm more surprised that he bothered to point out so many other examples of media-influenced killers, basically only identified Holmes, and went on with the charge of associating fan culture with a breeding ground for mass killers.
That said, his definition of "fanboy" extends to "pretty much anybody with an obsessive interest in a bit of media". Of course, he mentions local nightmare Charles Whitman in making the case, a person with no particular interest linked to any media, but who also killed a lot of people. He dismisses the long history of disturbing, mass or serial killings (Devil in the White City, Lizzy Borden, the fact that modern police work, a lack of records and immediate communication meant people just used to disappear and nobody noticed, etc... et al.... anybody? anybody?) believing that only Jack the Ripper ever got more than one person before 1950.
It's not a huge secret around our house that I don't hold Gleiberman's taste in very high regard, and you can pretty much count on his befuddlement when it comes to genre pictures (Jamie has had a subscription to EW since around 1995, so we've had opportunity to discuss the man's writing).
I won't say I don't echo some of Gleiberman's thoughts, but the more I thought about the article and it's constant accusations, backtracking on the accusations with a "I'm just saying" statement - the more I found it a bit disturbing.
I encourage you to pop over and read the article on your own. It's free.
Let me clear the decks first and roll my eyes at Gleiberman's creeping assertions about fanboy culture and his ability to finally have a way to express his discomfort with the phenomena. Exasperation with sci-fi/ comics/ fantasy and the culture around them has been an ongoing theme in his reviews for a decade. He basically is both aware of and flustered by the fact that these people will not listen to reason when he can demonstrably prove his favorite Meryl Streep movie is of more value than Serenity. So, in a way, I'm not all that surprised by the path he goes down here. I'm more surprised that he bothered to point out so many other examples of media-influenced killers, basically only identified Holmes, and went on with the charge of associating fan culture with a breeding ground for mass killers.
That said, his definition of "fanboy" extends to "pretty much anybody with an obsessive interest in a bit of media". Of course, he mentions local nightmare Charles Whitman in making the case, a person with no particular interest linked to any media, but who also killed a lot of people. He dismisses the long history of disturbing, mass or serial killings (Devil in the White City, Lizzy Borden, the fact that modern police work, a lack of records and immediate communication meant people just used to disappear and nobody noticed, etc... et al.... anybody? anybody?) believing that only Jack the Ripper ever got more than one person before 1950.
A couple of quick Superman Reviews: Superman Family #3 and Superman #11
Superman Family Adventures #3
by Baltazar and Franco
The fact that this book isn't moving 80,000 copies per month is a crime. Good-natured, action-packed, zany, bizarre and purely in love with the Superman mythos, this book is a perfect comic to hand a kid as well as your hipster pal looking for a good laugh. If you're into a balanced diet in your comics, this is sort of the lovely pudding you should save to savor at the end of the buy pile. Or something.
by Baltazar and Franco
The fact that this book isn't moving 80,000 copies per month is a crime. Good-natured, action-packed, zany, bizarre and purely in love with the Superman mythos, this book is a perfect comic to hand a kid as well as your hipster pal looking for a good laugh. If you're into a balanced diet in your comics, this is sort of the lovely pudding you should save to savor at the end of the buy pile. Or something.
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Signal Watch Review: Masks & Mobsters (from MonkeyBrain Comics)
One of the great things thus far about MonkeyBrain Comics has been the wide variety of genre content coming from the publisher. Last week saw tweaky hipster/ swords & sorcery strip Wander hit the internets. This week MonkeyBrain rolls out Masks & Mobsters, a book that's pretty well set on the Signal Watch Venn Diagram as it's crime/ gangster comics set in a 1930's-era urban center with wiseguys starting to feel the heat from mystery men with strange powers.
The book's title page promises that this will be less of a straight narrative, issue after issue, as it announces it's an anthology title (ie: a fresh story with each issue, I'm guessing), so we'll see where the creative team is taking it from here (or if the same creative team will even stay around).
Sherman Hemsley Merges with The Infinite
Sherman Hemsley, a staple of television for the past 40 years and most famous for his role as George Jefferson on both All in the Family and The Jeffersons, has passed. He was 74.
Bit of Signal Watch trivia: Sherman Hemsley also played Superman villain Winslow Schott, The Toyman, on an episode of Lois & Clark.
Bit of Signal Watch trivia: Sherman Hemsley also played Superman villain Winslow Schott, The Toyman, on an episode of Lois & Clark.
Happy Birthday, Amelia Earhart
You don't hear the term "aviatrix" anymore, and that's a shame, because that is one awesome word. "Pilot" just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Born on July 24, 1897, Earhart would go on to become one of the most famous aviators in the world, her name still synonymous with pioneering and the adventurous spirit of the 20th Century.
Earhart was the first woman to cross the Atlantic by plane, an educator and a leader in the cause of women's rights.
She is, of course, equally famous for disappearing during her ill-fated flight over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to circumnavigate the globe.
We're still looking for you, Amelia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)