u/TeddieSnow

I was told to write an autobiography, because -- of course -- I'm a rather important person. Trust me on that. It was in fact an assignment from my 3rd Grade English teacher who I really liked.

Notice the song choice. ROCKET MAN is a song about loneliness while TEACHER I NEED YOU is an obvious solution to the loneliness problem. So basically I was hitting on my 3rd Grade teacher.

I had to go to Urgent Care yesterday in California. Don't worry, I was okay and I am okay but I had to make sure. So I spent some time with others in the waiting room.

Take a close look at this picture. You will have to zoom in and look around the room. There are two things in this room that made me take this picture. They're related to a Vintage TV show.

Can you find them?

(The first one leans obvious. I've been to this Urgent Care before but this way the first time I noticed this. The second showed up almost immediately and the wife and I freaked out.)

(Why are people downvoting this? Did you miss the two things?)

----------------------------------------

By the way, speaking of Vintage TV and coincidences, a few years back I had surgery in this hospital. A Doctor's Assistant was named Dr. Christopher Pike. Star Trek fans know that before Captain Kirk there was a Captain Pike played by Jeffrey Hunter. His character came back in the Abram's TREK movies and in the current series STRANGE NEW WORLDS.

So what's the coincidence? That surgery was on the same day Nichelle Nichol's passed away. She played Lt. Uhura from the same series. I'm happy no one told me this going into surgery.

Ever since I saw Lancia in SHE AND HER GIRLS I've been impressed. So emotional is this actress. And like her role in WAR OF FAITH -- she's also a firecracker!

I just discovered she did two films last year where where she plays a deaf damsel in distress. To my knowledge she isn't deaf, and so she had to learn sign language for these roles.

If you'd like to get know Lancia and have a day free -- start with SOUND OF SILENCE as a matinee, go take a late lunch or dinner break, live life a little, then that night see WE GIRLS, which despite the MDL ratings is actually far superior. The first film starts fine but falls apart in the 3rd act -- where to me -- WE GIRLS kept me on the edge of my seat.

If you leave this Double Feature a Lancia fan, SHE AND HER GIRLS is MUST SEE TV.

There are are about five individuals on this subreddit constantly attempting to label Katy Tur as 'right wing' with utterly unsupported arguments. Instead of quoting which show and segment she allegedly says things which displease them, they quote their 'feeling' about something she may have said.

Since they refuse to show the receipts, I'm going to embark on doing the opposite. I'm going to post brief snippets of Katy which prove that Katy is on the Left with the rest of us -- where she's always been -- and said clips are my receipts.

Today Katy ends this segment with a quote from her guest, where she's happy to use the journalists words to call Trump an Authoritarian' and delusional 'Emperor'. She says, "It's a good place to end it," which is journalisteze for, "Well said, friend."

Weird. Why would a Trump 'apologist' end a segment that way, pleased to indirectly call Trump a tyrant. Doesn't really add up, does it?

POP QUIZ -- What was the name of Katy Tur's 2017 Memoir about being on the Trump Campaign Trail for over 500 days?

1. The Art of the Campaign
2. Unbelievable: My Front-Row Seat to the Craziest Campaign in American History
3. Make America Great Again

If you're one of the individuals on this page misinforming others about Katy Tur, go with 1 or 3. If, on the other hand, you're perfectly aware that Katy Tur is a fellow Leftie, it was #2.

Gee -- why would a 'right leaning Trump apologist' choose that title?

Good God. I don't know where to even begin on this one. I recently saw the Apple documentary of Sidney Poitier and despite being a fan of his I'd never heard of this historic film.

1. Apparently this was the first major film ever starring a black man (Poitier) as the lead, where he was not subservient. He plays a Doctor. He's young and doing his best with the weight of his race on his shoulders. Not in the movie, I mean outside of it.
2. Widmark drops the N word more times than Lil Wayne in a bad mood. (I've learned that on set Widmark kept apologizing to Poitier for doing so, and they became lifelong friends.)
3. The story is kinda all over the place, since Joe Mankiewitz was in virgin territory and had quite the playground. Race riots, hired help, a black family, Doctors in peril -- he was having fun.
4. You can see a young Ossie Davis, Mr. Miller High Life from DO THE RIGHT THING.
5. I smell a huge rat regarding the end of this film. I won't spoil. What happens is the final scene happens in Wharton's home as a meeting place of several characters. It's natural that Wharton himself would be there, but at the last minute has has to stay at the hospital for a flimsy reason.

Mank was writing and directing and known to change the script on set. I feel he was seeing dailies of Wharton and discovered his kind-hearted liberal non-racist lead was stiff as a board. The actor Stephen McNally was cut from the looming 50s moviesstiff lead males, not the fascinating ones from the 40s like Grant, Cooper, and Stewart.

Meanwhile Mank was dating the female lead (I really wish directors would never do this) and Linda Darnell was absolutely terrific. NO WAY OUT was made 1949/1950, and so while the McNally was a typical 50's cardboard square jaw male, Darnell walked right out of 40's noir. And it was electric.

So the rat I smell? The director's girlfriend talked him into losing McNally in the final sequence so that she could have the limelight. The tell is that the scene was fantastic but why was it staged in the home of a dude that never showed up for the end of the movie in his own house?

That's my best guess why.

----------------------------------

NO WAY OUT is more of a historical fascination that a great movie. That said: Widmark and Darnell were excellent, Poitier pretty damn good for a novice, and McNally McPassable. The story documents the unbelievably tense times that current Americana types would rather be forgotten.

If a movie buff, MUST SEE.

So my fave rave at 13 was LOGAN'S RUN. I know it wasn't perfect, but there was so MUCH to enjoy in this movie. I've watched this silly thing maybe 25 times since 1976, and as a screenwriter/movie buff -- I can't believe I discovered two rather subtle things I've missed all these years.

1. Logan and Jessica get outside. Enter the overgrown Congress. They hear a sound coming out of the main room and Logan tears a leg off of a piece of furniture to hold as a weapon. Only 50 years later I finally asked myself, "Hey, what happened to his gun?!?"

He never said he dropped or lost it. The last time it was seen was firing during a fight with Box. So, presumably, when his weapon sets off the ice avalanche in the cold cave, he lost it there. Because as he and Jess walk out of the cave towards the sun -- it's gone.

I can think of three reasons why they disposed of his gun so quietly. One, these two were sort of reborn as they left the city, and perhaps they wanted to write out the gun as 'savage tech' like the Carousel. Secondly, it would look rather awful if Logan closed in on the Old Man with a firearm.

But most likely is the planned fist fight with Francis, which explains why Jessica steals Francis' gun and throws it to a distant part of the balcony.

2. The second detail is earlier, when Logan and Jessica enter the NEW YOU Face Shop. 'Doc' meets Logan and shakes his hand. But then he glances at Jessica and makes fast look of acknowledgement, in a way that suggests they already know each other. (See my reply to this for that image.)

Back in the 70s this guy would have instead said something like, "I can't imagine YOU need a new face!" and shake her hand as well. The fact he said nothing reveals they know each other.

Couldn't find a place to share this -- had to share it somewhere.

Greetings,

She was holding out for campus housing but didn't make the cut. She was interested in Identity Apartments but Yelp rates them as a clip-joint.

What advice can you share for me. She's a great kid but doesn't live in the area. Do you think we should drive her up and hunt? Do you believe there's still good spots available?

Is there an online group for this sort of thing? (I just found this https://chl.ucdavis.edu/listing.) Is it helpful?

Would a fast way be finding people already with an apartment settled seeking one more roommate?

Thanks for any help!

I've been desperate for a quality Italian dining in town. There was hope when MADRI opened up next door to the Stags. I went and the food was hit or miss. My wife was offered an unacceptable meal, we told the owner to his face it was rather disappointing, and he did nothing about it.

During the ordering of an entree we were asked if we'd like soup or salad with that, in the way that implies it's included with the entree. We said salad and later discovered we were charged for it. The charge was reversed, once we gave up on the hiding waitress and brought it to someone else.

Now I see this review on YELP and see this up charging is a thing. As if Redlands is Vegas, always trying to nickle and dime you.

So not cool.

I'm a big fan of Guest's GUFFMAN, BEST IN SHOW, and MIGHTY WIND FILMS. They're some of the last best comedies out of Hollywood. I remember when FYC was released and it got a cool reception. So I didn't run to see it. But over the years I kind of forgot it existed and decided last night to finally see it.

The best thing you can say about this film is that it's great to see the ensemble return and conjure up yet another slew of fun characters. And new entries like Ricky Gervais made things even more exciting. But then...

... a lot of the characters seemed the same. Fred Willard and Eugene Levy and the 'writers' and the producer all seem a little too familiar. Guest is usually fucking hilarious but in this one he's doing a pat Jewish director character eating corn beef sandwiches and is a serious yawn.

But the deeper problem with these characters is we don't really like any of them. In GUFFMAN we like the shy talented dentist giving it his all. In BEST OF SHOW we love Guest's unassuming hound owner. In WIND we love that couple singing their old love song together again.

But in FYC I basically don't give a damn about any of these people. Guest's cynicism of the industry is spot on but his obvious dislike of Hollywood bleeds into a dark sort of hatred. It's almost like he was so sick of making these films with these people he burned it all down.

My second problem with the film was the movie within the movie, HOME FOR PURIM. The gag is that Jewish Hollywood is so self-indulgent that you need a studio suit to come in (Ricky Gervais) and reduce the Jewish-ness of the film. (Which was absolutely hilarious.)

The problem was the film they were making wasn't anything that Hollywood makes. Artsy films might have a Jewish family meeting for a holiday, but not as a period piece. So the film within the film felt fake, which was a first for a Guest satire. And it also felt weird that this film was getting any Oscar interest whatsoever for the same reason.

I would have made the film within a film a satire of exactly what does get Oscar attention. A film called LITTLE BIRDS OF AUSCHWITZ, about a Jewish man and a black man falling in love in a concentration camp. This hits the three cliches of Oscar nominations: Jewish/holocaust, queer, and black. A film like this would have made Guest's cynicism more satirical.

I'd have added two other cliches of art house cinema. If you've watched enough trailers of foreign films, you've seen period women in dresses riding bikes -- and -- a scene where fireworks are going off. I'd have had Gervais insist on adding these into the film with a film. So Parker Posey gets friendly with a guard and he gives her a bicycle, which she rides around the camp to nobody's upset. And of course a scene where the gay lovers kiss and fireworks go off.

Oh, if you bother to mock Oscar cliches to this degree, LITTLE BIRDS would sweep the Oscars. And then be forgotten three weeks later, per usual.

Anyway, my third problem with this film is that it wasn't a mockumentary. It was a scripted story with little improvising. This allow O'Hara to have a leading dramatic role, but it made the entire feature feel off. (But goddamn she does the greatest drunks on film!)

My fourth and final issue with this film is that satirizing the industry is pat. It's done all the time. Nobody made a movie making fun of dog shows, and that's the direction this film should have gone to again. A dying department store chain. A DMV. A Summer School.

So should you see this if you're a fan of the previous films? Sure, why not, but lower your expectations. GUFFMAN and BEST are straight As, WIND is an A-/B+, but regrettably FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION is C+.

https://ultimateclassicrock.com/elton-john-hologram-residency-report/

This is an interesting opportunity visually. Elton was known for his outfits. Imagine the outfits changing from song to song right before your eyes.

Our Elton felt most comfortable behind the piano, but this one could occasionally shake his booty. And play the piano with his legs and platforms sky high. He could grow tall into his PINBALL WIZARD outfit.

The show could even recreate classic concert moments over the years. We could watch him age.

BACKSTORY

My Dad tried to bring me up Christian in the early 70's. Like Trump, he called himself a Christian out of one side of his mouth but behaved nothing like on as a going concern. I observed that Christianity was a man's religion of patriarchy, preferred my kind atheist Mom -- and announced in the 5th grade I'd no longer be attending Church. And that was that.

Except in a global patriarchy, that's not that. Religion follows you around each and every day. It's on my money. On a patriotic pledge. There's major holidays reserved for religions.

When explaining agnosticism to others, I found atheists as frustrating as theists. Creating further isolation.

THEISTS, as you all know, interpret agnosticism as 'someone really close to believing in their God'. You tell them if a 'God' does exist but can't be known, they say some sort of crap like 'But if you accept God in your heart and soul, He can be known'. That is: if you pretend with the rest of us, we can all pretend together. Sigh.

ATHEISTS carve out this annoying little corner they fiercely defend. They love to say, "We simply don't see any evidence that a God exists." Which I almost agree with, until you consider the possibility that if we indeed had 'creators' that --perhaps -- they didn't want to be known or seen. Their answers are usually as bad as Christian answers, which here go something like, "You can't prove a negative." or "I've seen no evidence of this."

Characters in a video game 'exist' but have no idea who created them. By the game's design. If you can grasp that concept, you can grasp that perhaps the human mind cannot ultimately know how we got here, hence agnosticism.

So this is when I point out to theists and atheists, they're two sides of the same coin. On one side, the Theists admit they aren't certain God exists but instead have 'Faith' that 'He' exists. Which is strange because otherwise speak of God like their next door neighbor.

On the other side of the coin, you have atheists who are oddly certain that it doesn't matter if a 'God' with intentions of remaining anonymous exists, because they're certain they've never seen evidence of that. Which of course you won't, like a character in a video game who is unaware of their programmers.

This is when I scream this uncertainty lives on both sides of the this coin -- and it's why -- we're all born agnostics and shall die as agnostics -- if we're being honest. And this is when both sides say -- and this is my favorite part -- "Well if that is your definition of agnosticism, I suppose we're all agnostic."

It's not my definition. That inconvenient truth is the definition of agnosticism.

But pitting yourself between atheists and theists is a losing proposition. So like the title says, I needed something concrete that couldn't be denied. Slam Dunk arguments.

I spent my life looking for them, and found two.

SLAM DUNK #1: CHRISTIANITY IS IMMORAL

I know, that's a shocker. But it is. And the evidence of which is plain as day for any Christian to see.

Before I start, I'm not implying Christianity is immoral compared to other religions. I don't know other religions well enough to comment. Since Jesus is dominant in my home country of America, I'm simply sharing a fact about Christianity.

Let's back up. Everyone likes to say all major religions incorporate the Golden Rule. So how bad could they be? I submit to you that religion exists to circumvent/distort the Golden Rule. To diminish the Golden Rule.

As a kid I was familiar with two productions of GODSPELL. I'm convinced I knew Matthew better than most Christians. Rehearsal after rehearsal I heard the most important commandment again and again, but it took me decades to finally hear it once properly.

Jesus is asked what is the most important lesson/commandment of all. Think about that for a second. Whatever Jesus says next matters a great deal, right? It's the Christianity nutshell.

He said --

“‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’******^([)^(a)^(]) ^(38) This is the first and greatest commandment. ^(39) And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’******^([)^(b)^(]) ^(40) All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

Whoa. There's a lot wrong there.

1. The answer doesn't answer the question. If it did, the answer would be, "Love God with all your heart and mind." FULL STOP. Why does this answer include a second answer at all? To include a second inferior option implies there's something incomplete about simply loving God.
2. The second answer isn't like the first one. It's different. How do we know this? He says it: this is the first and greatest commandment. Loving God is more important than loving each other. Fact, not an opinion.
3. If it was important to link these ideas as one, it would go something like this, "If you love your neighbor as yourself, and love this world as your home -- by doing so -- you will love and praise me." See the difference? But that's not what the 'greatest commandment' says. Not even close.

So the greatest commandment exists to dominate the Golden Rule. And of course it does. Because if you live by the Golden Rule, what do you need religion for?

And so, to me, any ideology that puts The Golden Rule in the backseat for it's own belief system is by definition immoral. The Golden Rule does not approve of massacres. God? A little more generous in that way.

SLAM DUNK #2: THE POINT OF VIEW PROBLEM

Years ago I was watching an old movie from the 40's called A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH. It opens with a narrator discussing the universe. It's an animated sequence because we hadn't launched our first cameras into space yet. It showed the stars and milky way rather well but when it got to showing Earth, it was a green muddy dark bowling ball.

I chuckled to myself. "Well, I guess they had no clue what Earth looked like yet." Har har. And then it hit me: neither does any religious text on the planet.

Need that again?

If 'God' said Let there be light, he also said, "Let there be Earth!" But for some reason the Bible has no clue what Earth looks like from space. If God is an all knowing creator, certainly he knows what his big blue marble looks like.

Naysayers say, "But the people back then were so simple. They wouldn't understand God's description of Earth from space." And I say bullshit. "This world I give you is round like baby's head, blue like the oceans, and has land and green in between." Simple.

Now, as a proper agnostic, I had a panic moment. Sure, the Bible doesn't describe Earth from space, but what if another religion did! Using my sound logic, I'd have to grant divinity in that religion. That it is the word of God. But of course --

-- no religious text on the planet describes Earth from the Heavens, which is the most slam dunk evidence these religions have no divine perspective in them whatsoever.

Armed with these two arguments, I believe you can sound less 'wishy-washy' and more grounded.

Take care.

I saw this 1971 movie as a kid, a few years after its release on a rainy afternoon. It was a bit avant garde for me but then you have to start somewhere with such movies.

I recently saw it again for the second time, over 5 decades later, and learned two things --

For the same period of decades, Cat Stevens never grabbed me. This movie was why.

I don't cringe at his music as much as not entirely vibe with it. I felt he was forcing hippy onto folk in an on the nose way. Not terrible, but it turned out I preferred the way Jim Croce and James Taylor did it. Fans of this film consider this an obnoxious take on the film and Cat Stevens, but guess what else I learned?

The director - Hal Ashby -- originally wanted none other than Elton H. John to do the soundtrack. Yes. Cat Stevens was his second choice. Since my fave film of all time is BEING THERE -- a Hal Ashby masterpiece -- I learned on the far end of life Ashby and I... well... saw eye to eye sometimes, lol.

If there was an easy AI way to remove all the Cat Stevens and replace with some Elton action, I'd do it for spits and giggles.

Just imagine I THINK I'M GONNA KILL MYSELF in this movie...