Maybe your final sentence does describe reality, but you are vastly underestimating the number of evil people out there.
I see the Eric/Vince relationship as about the sufferings of Eric, or the implicit insecurity of Eric--in contrast to the explicit insecurity of Drama. A lot of the tension of the show is Eric's fear of losing Vince to Hollywood, or to some other friend, for instance the whole show with the prison friend is about Eric being displaced in Vince's affections. In a way every show is about Eric's fear of Vince leaving him, of their being distance between them, and the emotional resolution of each is Vince staying true to Eric and his values and artistic vision.
but with the sense, almost always in the background, that these people will go to the mat for you, always love you, even die for you.-
Just come out, already.
In a way every show is about Eric's fear of Vince leaving him, of their being distance between them, and the emotional resolution of each is Vince staying true to Eric and his values and artistic vision
Yeah, great point. What makes this dynamic even more interesting is that Eric seems like the one most likely to "go Hollywood," and leave Vince.
By the way, Wire fans, the "prison friend" is played by the guy who plays Herc, and the guy who plays Wee-Bay shows up as a rap mogul.
More trivia: Piven's character, Ari Gold, is supposedly based in part on real-life agent Ari Emanuel, who is the brother of Congressman Rahm Emanuel, who started out as...a ballet dancer.
Also, the scene where Eric punches out Seth Green might be based on a real-life incident in which the guy who plays Eric, who dates Nicky Hilton in real life, punched out a DJ who insulted her at a party.
Eric seems like the one most likely to "go Hollywood,"
Why do you think so? I would read it more as Vince being impulsive, driven by the emotion of the moment, whereas Eric is trying to build something, and thinks long-term. He's the one with the vision. Do you think he can't tread the line between art and pragmatism (art and Aquaman)? He'll get sucked in?
Oh, I think as long as the two of them are together, they'll keep each other honest, but I can imagine Eric going out on his own, to become an agent or manager to others, in order to prove himself (and rationalizing by thinking that Vince is already a star, and doesn't really need Eric).
So no one else watches this show?
You're not a television crowd, are you?
I also expected to hate Entourage, but Jesus Christ, Jeremey Piven's 10 minutes of screentime make the rest worth watching. I'm not sure I buy into the bonding thing; however, I'll reserve judgment until after I watch tonight's episode. That said, I love all the self-conscious, Seinfeld-type references to other films. Unlike the cast of Seinfeld, who were blithely unaware of the films their lives were parodying, the cast of Entourage is painfully aware that they're following the script.
Take, for example, the graduation party, where Vince reenacts the scene from Almost Famous. There's no inherent tension there; by which I mean, he's a fame-drunk (and drunk-drunk) celebrity on a roof, but he's just standing there talking to people. The camera, however, shows you that the roof is too far from the pool for Vince to jump without killing himself. All the tension comes from the allusion. You're waiting, and waiting, and waiting for him to make a dive for the pool...or for Ari to get there.
That's one example, but they usually manage to jam one or two of them in every episode.
I only catch the show when I'm on the road, but like it, and find your description spot on.
Now I have to get back to timesheets . . .
Face it, Ogged, I am the only person with whom you can discuss the intricacies of male bonding.
You're not a television crowd, are you?
Hey, I finally watched the first episode of Deadwood yesterday. I'll probably watch the second episode. Because it's on the same disc.
I haven't seen the show, but this
spent with a group of close friends in complicated, often hostile rivalry, but with the sense, almost always in the background, that these people will go to the mat for you, always love you, even die for you.--"You stupid fucking asshole. Anything you need, ok?"--When people start coupling off, those groups die, and we never really get them back. Even at my relatively young age, when I get together with the guys I shared those days with, we don't restart, but reminisce.
Face it, Ogged, I am the only person with whom you can discuss the intricacies of male bonding.
God, I think this might be true. How did this happen?
I'm not sure what you mean by "simplicity," SCMT. It's a simpler time of life, to be sure, but I'm not sure the relationships themselves are more simple, whatever that might mean.
I've seen a couple of episodes, and your description seems true to what I thought worth liking in the show. However, that core experience of male bonding doesn't tug very hard at my heartstrings.
In other TV news, I have just addicted converted another person to The Wire. (Now I need to figure out how not to rewatch the entire thing with him...)
I'm getting pity comments now, aren't I?
The core experience of male bonding actually interests me a lot, but I've gotten bored with it. It seems to be the subject of most character-based drama and, you know, it would be nice to see something that was good and subtle and about women instead of this frivolous Sex and the City stuff that people seem to like because it's the only thing out there. Enough with the boys already.
That was shrewish, wasn't it? Ogged, find yourself some good women-centered ensemble dramas and let me know what they are. I'm going to need some stuff to procrastinate with next year.
You're not a television crowd, are you?
I watch a lot of TV during football and basketball seasons, but mostly just football and basketball. I watch The Office and there are a couple of shows that I see because Roberta watches them but I don't see them if she's out of the house. Sometimes I turn on The Daily Show if I notice that it's 11:00, but mostly I just catch clips at Crooks and Liars.
Other than that, I'll scan the channels every so often for boxing or monkey shows, but that's about it. Blogs more or less killed my TV habit.
good women-centered ensemble dramas
Now you're just making trouble. Like any such thing exists.
B, I haven't seen any Nicole Holofcener movies but I really want to.
16: Maybe that's right. I guess I mean that what is characteristic of such groups is that they're not very introspective, and so much of the complication is in the minds of the individuals. The relationships themselves are, if not mannered, something like that.
I don't have cable, but I watch Entourage on HBO On Demand when doing laundry at my mom's house.
The only one I've seen is Lovely and Amazing, which really is.
Throughout the history of Western civilization, male friendship has been considered the paradigmatic form. Male bonding is perhaps the single most frequently treated human phenomenon in all cultural forms.
Meanwhile, in real life statistical evidence indicates that women are much more likely to actually practice friendship throughout life, as opposed to during a discrete formative period. But we still have to endure fourteen fucking football movies ("inspired by a true story!") every fall.
26: The only thing that seems like it would be more frequently portrayed than male bonding is the male seduction of a female -- the latter, of course, being defined as the kind of thing that women like to watch.
25 to 22.
23: Here's an outsider's guess, based on watching what happened to my own friendships and Mr. B.'s friendships over marriage and then kids. Isn't it in part that men's friendships, in particular, depend so heavily on doing things together? So once other demands on one's time start cropping up ("complications"), it's harder to spend time together. So even if you keep in touch, you start losing the common experiences that are a big part of the friendship? Especially if it's a group of friends.
There's The L Word, but that sucks, as has been noted. I'm trying to think of others. Judging Amy? I've never seen it.
27: But seduction (romance) stories are so seldom any good.
People talked a lot about the Gilmore Girls, but I never saw it. And my impression is that it's about a younger crowd. What I wouldn't give for a good story about mature women's friendship, or even one about friendship in the 20s but told from that slightly retroactive point of view that characterizes most of the good male-bonding dramas.
so much of the complication is in the minds of the individuals
Yes! Young guys are mutely stewing a lot of the time. I think Entourage gives a good sense of what they'd say if they could.
Judging Amy sure seems to qualify, but as I say, I've never seen it.
Gilmore Girls was great, but the good writers are leaving. And although it's a WB show, there are three different generations represented in the mother-daughter dramas. And there's as much about the life of the thirtysomething mother as her daughter.
If you did a female-bonding film in the style of a male-bonding film, everyone would be going crazy because of the lesbian subtext.
Isn't it in part that men's friendships, in particular, depend so heavily on doing things together?
That's definitely true. But that isn't true, IME, for male-female friendships. So male friendships are both harder (less explicit) and easier (you can fall back into them quite easily when you're back together).
you can fall back into them quite easily
But is this true? If you're just seeing someone briefly, you're not really doing stuff together, and you're not filled in on the intervening time.
Pretty recently I saw a friend of mine who I hadn't seen in over ten years, I think, and it felt pretty much like we fell right back into the friendship as it was. So I think I'm with SCMT here. On the other hand we didn't particularly do any stuff together, like bowling or something, and I don't remember our old friendship being predicated on that either -- we hung out.
Yup, put me in the Weiner and SCMT camp.
37: I find it to be pretty true, if they're by themselves (i.e., without family) when you see them. I'm sure these sorts of things are effected by the time between visits, etc.
Kotsko, I've never heard someone so angry about light entertainment. Have you considered taking up a violent hobby?
Given that his present hobby is "hating America," I'm not sure we want it to be a violent one.
I find Kotsko's points insightful and not particularly angry. I particularly liked the bit about seduction narratives being defined as what a woman wants to watch.
Of course, in 35 "going crazy" s/b "buying tickets." (Actually isn't that a good description of Thelma and Louise)
Even a man raising broadly "feminist" points is dismissed as "angry."
In reality, I'm not angry. I was calm and collected in composing my comments, and in fact, they underwent a few discrete drafts as I tried to figure out the best possible way to reflect my calmness.
seduction narratives being defined as what a woman wants to watch.
Isn't it the case that women are the primary audience for them? At least for stories in which the seduction is a major theme...
I don't think it's just a guy thing, the picking-up-old-friendships stuff. I've done it with both men friends and women friends.
Ogged, why does it bother you so much when people feel angry about things that are legitimately objectionable?
Women are supposedly the primary audience for romance because (1) it's often the only thing out there that even *has* a woman as a primary character; and (2) so much of our fucking (oops) public identity depends on our relationship(s) with men.
Thelma and Louise definitely struck me as a classic male-bonding film, with no penises. It's funny, but I actually thought that female relationships were pretty well represented among the romance-genre movies. Especially of late, many of them (and I'm blanking on examples, though I guess Sex in the City is paradigmatic) seem to use the romance as a conceit around which to structure the fun the women are having together.
I admittedly have an undercurrent of frustration today stemming from the fact that I inexplicably have to blow my nose every 30 seconds. I am also suffering acutely from having to sit through commercials for football movies.
Possible comment fork: What is the relationship between Seinfeld and the male bonding genre? Is Elaine simply accepted as an honorary man in that group of friends?
I dunno, Kotsko, you often seem blindingly angry to me. I could be misreading all your comments.
51: Only to the extent they're accepted as not-men; Seinfeld's not very male bond-y, to me. It's more just friend bond-y. After all, they primarily just talk.
Does any male bonding even happen in Seinfeld?
Even a man raising broadly "feminist" points is dismissed as "angry."
I'll bet you don't shave your legs either.
Blindingly to you -- because you can't stand the light of Truth!!!!!!
I've seen every episode of Entourage. One interesting point about it, related to some of the E and Vince stuff above, is that when watch but don't reflect on the show they tend to imagine that Vince is the main character, since his character is that of a famous actor. In reality, though, the arc of the show (as opposed to the plot of any individual episode) is almost always driven by E's wants and problems, and when it's not it's driven by Ari's.
B, from the episodes of Gilmore Girls I've seen, and your blog-commenting persona, I'd imagine you'd like it.
I hope you all will excuse a brief digression back on topic. Ogged, I am a big Entourage fan, and I mostly agree with your assessment of why it is appealing. Indeed, while I find the Ari character OK, the best part is how they show the friendship of four flawed but basically likable guys.
Much of what B says in 19 seems right, but it's no reason not to watch Entourage.
Also, I pointedly and somewhat pretentiously don't follow the "what's celebrity X doing now?" news, and have correspondingly never thought that anything on Entourage reminded me of something from real life.
One of the reasons, I think, for the sheer quantity of male-bonding entertainment is that it's so important to a lot of guys, but the guys it's most important to tend toward the inarticulate, so they keep responding to not-progressively-more-sophisticated depictions of it.
I think another reason is that the producers, writers, and directors with power in Hollywood are men. So naturally, that's what they think is important: men's experience.
That doesn't really explain why it would be male bonding, just why it would be male.
Does any male bonding even happen in Seinfeld?
The non-sexual crush? "Step off, George."
Well, it mostly is male. The bonding thing would be because, duh, friendship is an important element in people's lives. Male bonding is about the friendships between men. If you are a male writer, and you think that what and how men think and feel is really the most interesting subject in the world, then it kind of stands to reason that an ensemble drama about what and how men think would be a fabulous way to explore that endlessly fascinating subject. Inasmuch as women are less interesting, and the relationships between men and women require one to dramatize or think about these less interesting people, then really, wouldn't you prefer to write about men relating to other interesting people, i.e., men?
It isn't always male bonding, anyway. There are tons of things out there that are about men competing with other men, men fighting with other men, men coming to terms with their fathers, etc. etc. It's just that the bonding thing, being about friendship, involves ensemble casting and therefore is really pretty interesting to write/direct/watch. Also it's probably more compelling from the point of view of a television *series*, since an ensemble of cast means that you can vary the kaleidoscope and view the group of relationships through endlessly varying points of view.
Aha. I've thought of you as angry for a while, Adam, so fuck you and your "broadly feminist points," motherfucker.
It's also interesting, come to think of it, that so many of the male bonding stories seem to have this strong bittersweet element to them. Perhaps it's an endlessly fascinating subject because it's something men supposedly aren't good at, or tend to lose, but really want and enjoy when they have it. Or perhaps it's because writers, like prissy academics, think and talk ("relate") more than the average man, and therefore have a particularly complex relationship to the subject of relationships with men.
I mean, guys are interesting creatures. It's just that there are so many other stories that are interesting, too.
Speaking of men and repressed emotion and all that, Ogged, I still wanna know why anger bothers you so much.
Speaking of men and repressed emotion and all that, Ogged, I still wanna know why anger bothers you so much.
This has always struck me as a weird question. Isn't part of the point of anger, or at least the actions anger motivates one to perform, to be bothersome?
So you're saying it's got something to do with blurring the distinction between impersonal and personal animosity.
I don't think you can call a girl a douchebag. Isn't what you mean, "Check out the broadly feminist points on that one"?
If you already fucking know why I'm angry, why fucking bring it up, asshole?
25:As I said in an earlier thread, Walking and Talking was Holofcener's first movie, is explicity about female bonding, is good enough that I have watched some or all of it several times. I cannot in good conscience recommend a movie that is about two young women working thru their friendship on the eve on one member's marriage, and is only about that. It may not be for everyone.
why fucking bring it up, asshole?
Well, friar's favorite, excuse me for being concerned about your welfare.
70: What? Emotions don't have a point; they just are. And the ways that people express them often don't have much point, either, except simply to express emotion.
That said, of course one can and hopefully does choose or manage how one expresses certain feelings, and the choices have reasons, sure. But the mere *expression* of anger over, say, "fucking football movies"? Big deal.
I dunno. I think (this isn't about O specifically, I'm kind of broadening the point from hassling him since he isn't into being hassled) that we are, if anything, more wary about expressions of anger than we are expressions of affection.
My joints my joints my joints. My broadly feminist points.
A real man would ban himself now, Weiner.
Awesome things (a list by me):
1. The Gilmore Girls
2. Comment 77
Judging Amy was, when I stopped watching it a couple years ago, a horrible, horrible show. Every week a new 10-ton misery dropping *whomp* from the sky.
Don't come crying when you see me commenting at TAPPED, then. (That is to say, you're right.)
I don't mind if you two-time, Matt, just don't leave me!
My complaint about the Gilmore Girls is that they talk too fast.
Or, to stay in character: "too fucking fast!"
Cheating is always bad, which badness is never tempered by context. ogged, you must blogdivorce Matt.
we are, if anything, more wary about expressions of anger than we are expressions of affection.
Again, this strikes me as a "What if "dog" were spelled "c-a-t"" issue. We like affection because we like affection. There are, of course, people who like other people's anger, but they're not the norm.
ogged, I agree with you about Entourage. It's an awesome show and I'm hooked. It's too bad there's only one episode left. Piven is definitely entertaining (he usually is in everything), if over the top sometimes. I'm also hooked on "Lucky Louie" as well. Both of these have become must watch shows (actually, the only TV shows I make an effort to step away from the computer to watch).
Boys on the Side was about female bonding.
It's kinda tough, I can come up with a lot of decent movies about female independence, like Ruby in Paradise, and GLBT romances, but not enough about female friendships. I can come up with toms of movies about male friendships, where the story is about "why don't the dudes just grow up and make a committment to that good woman waiting over there" Everybody loooves Nick Hornsby , huh. Not so many movies about women "wasting their lives" in that manner.
I believe that to maintain a strong friendship while also maintaining a strong partnership is very difficult, or at least the movies tell me it is.
Standpipe, you Weiner chaser, it's not going to be so easy to come between us. Anyway, I believe I argued that in such a situation, all Weiner was required to do was to hate himself.
Not so many movies about women "wasting their lives" in that manner.
It seems to me that most women's movies are about women either wasting their lives without a man, or wasting their lives with a specific man. Bridget Jones, I & II, off the top of my head.
Frankly, o-dawg, seems you're after Weiner just as much as I am.
It's kinda tough, I can come up with a lot of decent movies about female independence, like Ruby in Paradise, and GLBT romances, but not enough about female friendships.
Perhaps for something to have entertainment value, it has to offer people something above what they experience on a daily basis. Perhaps TV and movie producers think men are less likely to be able to verbalize or articulate their friendships and seeing male bonding on screen sort of validates what they feel in real life but don't talk about whereas women tend to be more in tune with their friends' emotions and problems anyway (or atleast assumed to be), so isn't deemed as "special" or story-worthy.
84: Yeah, that's probably true; anger is more often potentially threatening or dangerous. Still, though.
And with that profound insight, I'm off to buy cigarettes (goddamnit, shut up. I need to finish this stupid article and I haven't smoked in two days and I have to stay up late again. Shut up! I'm not listening) and some delicious fast food for dinner! Because that's right: I'm a model mama!
I don't know, I watch a lot of ensemble movies, indies, about relationships. Which often contain even friendships between men and women. But like the Big Chill, all the various friendships are there, but it still feels like a background to everybody pairing off.
How many people here aren't paired off, and have friendships more important than SO's? And I guess I am talking about a friendship different from, but as important as, an SO. Alone isn't necessarily lonely, and paired off doesn't preclude loneliness, but the world looks to me like it mostly goes 2 x 2.
Well that was a hanging curveball, Bob.
John Emerson is not paired off.
PS:Kelly MacDonald also won an Emmy for The Girl in the Cafe. Which I mentioned in an earlier thread. My SO came in to tell me, and complain about the nomination being in the Supporting category. I says well depends on how her studio nominated her, which she liked, or also depends on billing, contract, union rules, screen time, which she grudgingly accepted. I admitted to only surfing the movie, being scared of its sweetness and cuteness, which she condemned, so I says it is ON Demand, and I will get to it soon.
Thought of ya, John. I thought of ya.
But like the Big Chill, all the various friendships are there, but it still feels like a background to everybody pairing off.
Probably because "falling in love" is such a strong emotion that everybody is drawn to, that hinting at "something more" is an easy way to get an audience to "feel good feelings" and report enjoying the movie. Of course, it can't be too blatant or guys know it's a "chic flic" which isn't cool.
How many people here aren't paired off, and have friendships more important than SO's?
Pretty much by definition, any friendship is more important than a non-existent partner.
(Snark aside, of course friendships are often more important than significant otherships. For one thing, they usually last longer.)
(Snark aside, of course friendships are often more important than significant otherships. For one thing, they usually last longer.)
Mmmm, perhaps. But, I think you're implicitly thinking of life-long friends when you say that, because the word "friendships" covers a wide-range of types of friends, some much more temporal. I'm guess the shape of the distribution of all one's friendships is very long tailed. That is, we all have a few people who have always been and always be our "true" or "best" friends, but many, many more are shorter term in nature.
... so, I dispute the "For one thing, they usually last longer" part ...
Seriously, I think there's a lot to the "I don't want to ruin the friendship" line, because friendships just often do last longer than the average relationship. And even all the "let's be friends" in the world won't make a failed relationship into a regular friendship. So, for example, I refuse to entertain ideas about getting involved romantically with my best male friend who is one of the awesomest people alive, but with whom I will probably have a lifelong friendship, and I don't want to fuck that up.
Is it just me, or are male-female friendships way more satisfying than the dominant culture gives them credit for?
My no-relationship / no-marriage principle also requires no male-bonding.
Nothing. Just nothing.
No pets, either.
97: meant "or..." of course.
And depends, depends. You know, who do ya know that can't cannot say no when ya knock at the door? And won't kick ya out for leaving the ring in the bathtub? Family, SO's? I don't think people have a lot of friends like that after they are forty.
Cause your SO says hey I know Sharon was your best friend from college days but its been three weeks, and...
Friendship is for the young, when you let them move in for six months. Or maybe only guys, maybe women say if they were really my friend, they wouldn't ask, wouldn't impose, would have better manners and be more sensitive and considerate, it isn't like they're fucking family, they're only friends. I don't have to let them in when they knock at the door.
I wonder how many young actresses have entourages, homies they carry and cover and count on.
Cause that's how I define a friend. Someone I let move in and feed for six months.
I have a 20-year agreement with a male friend that we can call each other at 4 a.m. if need be. Which basically means we can count on each other. And come to think of it, I did go live with him for three months, and he fed me, and this was when he was living with a girlfriend and when I was married.
So yeah. Friendships between men and women are really great, and it isn't just the boys who can be real friends in that way, nor just the uncoupled.
I wonder how many young actresses have entourages, homies they carry and cover and count on.
Paris Hilton puts her prospective homies through a rigorous series of trials before they get to be in her entourage.
I though Hilton put her prospective friends through a series of rigourous homies before they joined her entourage.
John, I think also of Farber, and maybe Tia. No judgement or anything, just people I think want to love. MY SO is all I've got, no phone calls to make, no letters to write, no reunions worth going to. I do have the dogs. 2000 miles and twenty years is too far from home. I know someday one of us will lose the other, and become desolate. Seen it happen so many times.
But I also think of Blaise Pascal, and all sin coming from not being able to sit alone in a room. Solitude is always an option.
b, i think you are lucky and blessed.
I have a 20-year agreement with a male friend that we can call each other at 4 a.m. if need be
Isn't this an implicit agreement between all friends? If there was someone I wouldn't call, or would be annoyed if s/he called me, I don't think I'd consider that person a friend. It seems like a low bar.
My parents once had a friend who showed up to stay with them for what they thought would be a weekend but turned into months. Eventually my mom got so fed up that she convinced my dad to tell him he had to leave, with the excuse that her mom was coming and they needed a place for her to stay. The friend agreed, moved his stuff out of the house, and pitched a tent in the backyard. He ended up staying several more months.
So yeah, friendship.
109: Gosh, Ogged, thanks for crapping on one of my most important relationships.
I thought I was crapping on all your other relationships.
Yeah, that's cool. Just jump on me in my hour of need, whatever.
101: Emerson, you should get a pet. Maybe a turtle.
Thanks, Becks. I like that story a lot.
I'm hoping to get paired off within a couple weeks, once I scope out the students in the class I'm TAing for and see who needs "extra help."
Just jump on me in my hour of need
I'm not that kind of friend, B.
So you plan on hooking up with some dumb chick, is what you're saying.
119: I'll call you up in about four hours to find out what kind of friend you are, then.
I think 120 works equally well in response to either 118 or 119.
And even all the "let's be friends" in the world won't make a failed relationship into a regular friendship.
Not true for everyone.
I really can't see Johnny Drama as the protecter of the group in any way. The only way he's the father is that he's the guy whose anger and irrationality and insecurities about his masculinity have to be managed and controlled. That's one kind of father.
what's being said about me? that I have friends more important than an SO? that I want to love?
122: So the alternative to jumping on me is jumping on some dumb chick? Thanks, Teo. I think.
I could have sworn 121 was written by Becks. Freudian slip! Becks, call me!
126: Wouldn't you rather have the kind of friend who jumps on dumb chicks rather than you? I know I would.
Drama is always willing to rough up someone who's crossed one of the entourage. Yeah, that needs managing, but he's willing. And in Vegas, they actually need him. Plus, he cooks them all breakfast every day, come on.
128: Depends a lot on the meaning of "jumps on."
130: You were the one who introduced the term, so you get to pick whatever definition you like.
It depends what we're talking about. At this point, I'm a little lost.
As long as Ogged doesn't jump on us out of the darkness, we should be okay.
He just wants late-night phone sex and someone to make him eggs in the morning.
He just wants late-night phone sex and someone to make him eggs in the morning.
Have I told you that?
The one is reasonable, but I don't cook for anyone in the morning unless they are the fruit of my loins.
Theme song for the last 30-odd comments.
From the same person? "Stop kissing me already and call me."
I agree with all of this, except that Turtle pretty much sucks, except as a foil for Johnny Drama. He's not lots of fun.
The real appeal of the show, for me is, wouldn't it be sweet to play x-box with the cast (esp. Jeremy Pivens) for an afternoon? It would, and we should all remember that.
138: Do you know, when I asked w-lfs-n about Blondie, he'd never heard of them? He had no idea who Debbie Harry was.
135 must refer to ogged. My feelings on eggs are well-known.
when I asked w-lfs-n about Blondie, he'd never heard of them?
This is very funny, because for about an hour while we were commenting on that thread, I was finding Blondie songs on YouTube and blasting them. Love Blondie.
I followed the link in w/d's 138, and the first comment on that thread is "i only liked it because i heard it on Bride of Chucky plus I totally like it!"
WTF?
142: Actually I have no idea if you like eggs or not. At least, I remember it being discussed or something, but not your opinion.
143: How can you love Blondie and Journey both? You are a very strange man.
From the same person?
Now why would I want that?
I've seen them live within the last year, though they only played two songs. And it's legitimately shocking, I'd never guess that as the band to stump w-lfs-n on.
text, I really hope that's not the reason I like it, because I don't buy that "the cast is having so much fun and it's just infectious" as applied to anything else" argument as applied to anything else (see, e.g., Ocean's 12).
146: How could you forget my ranting about the eggonormativity of restaurant breakfasts? No more 4 AM calling for you.
148: because I don't buy that "the cast is having so much fun and it's just infectious" as applied to anything else" argument as applied to anything else (see, e.g., Ocean's 12).
Someone said that exact thing to me about "Ocean's 12." My response was, that they're supposed to be entertaining me. I couldn't care less whether they're having fun.
And speaking of not knowing who someone totally famous is -- when we were watching Ocean's 12, I asked, "Is that Shannen Doherty?"
It was, of course, Catherine Zeta-Jones.
Now why would I want that?
Beats me. You can't insist both on being a weirdo and my having all the answers.
Debbie Harry is older than my mother.
"Is that Shannen Doherty?"
That betrays an ignorance of more than just one face: Shannen Doherty is no longer allowed to act in anything you have to pay to see.
149: Oh yes indeed, of course. How silly of me.
Too bad my 4 am privileges get suspended just as I realize I'm not required to cook eggs. Ah well.
138: Do you know, when I asked w-lfs-n about Blondie, he'd never heard of them? He had no idea who Debbie Harry was.
Lies! I just didn't recognize Harry's name. How could I have been ignorant of Blondie, when I knew that Robert Fripp played on Parallel Lines and occasionally with them live?
You were ignorant of Blondie. You'd never heard any of their music. Do I have to dig up the chat transcript?
I can cop to being ignorant of their music.
Okay, fine. Delete the "of" in 138.
hopping into the way-back machine, to 148:
I didn't mean to say it's fun to watch because it must have been so much fun to make, but that it's fun to watch because the characters, via the actual script, seem to be having such fun. They may hate each other in real life, and the set may be the battle of the somme on stilts; I don't know.
It's more in the way that a movie about the rat pack might be fun--if it were well cast, etc--and not that a movie starring the rat pack would be fun.
I recognize I made myself rather unclear by using Jeremy Piven's real name, rather than Ari, but he's a special case, and I wanted to reference, in particular, his awesomeness.
114: Turtles are pretty reasonable in the emotional-demands area.
152: Yeah, but she wouldn't try to con you into marrying your hott cousin.
Debbie Harry, Bjork, and the ex-Sex pistol Matlock (kicked out for learning new chords) are the three people I know of who gave phone interviews while sucking on a vodka bottle at noon. (Despite her wholesopme appearance, Bjork is apparently a serious juicer).
Regarding the small number of female-bonding movies vs. the larger number of male-bonding movies, there is probably some explanatory power in the data here. I don't know how good the data is, or how usefully it is sectioned, though.