It looks like a riot of colors, and much of this got away from me before I could bring it under control. Then I let the thing go and it got even crazier before I had to run away.
Noted historical author Bill O'Reilly--easily the most important historian in American history and far, far better than you could ever be*--has decided to air his dirty laundry in public and chase after money that his ex-wife probably doesn't have:
Bill O’Reilly’s legal battle against his ex-wife Maureen McPhilmy appeared to be over earlier this year when a panel of three appellate justices unanimously granted McPhilmy residential custody of the ex-couple’s two children. According to court documents filed last last month, however, O’Reilly intends to sue McPhilmy for $10 million on charges of misleading him about the terms of their separation agreement. In the same papers, the Fox News host accuses McPhilmy of using the proceeds of their separation to underwrite an affair with another man. And he wants the entire lawsuit to proceed in secret.
O’Reilly has built a formidable media empire around his unique brand of moral authoritarianism, with which he has indulged his audience’s obsession with the moral failings of black families. When it comes to the perceived sins of his own family, O’Reilly is only slightly more circumspect. The Fox host’s lawyers have filed a series of documents alleging that McPhilmy “knowingly made false misrepresentations and material omissions of existing fact to [O’Reilly] ... for the sole purpose of inducing [him] to agree to a consensual divorce and to obtain money and real property to finance an existing extra-marital relationship.”
Can you feel the rage behind this? Can you imagine what it was like for the ambulance chasing lawyer who took this lawsuit? He or she probably had O'Reilly breathing down their neck for months. I wonder if they advised him not to sue. This would make the whole thing go away and it wouldn't give his entire family a chance to reveal massive amounts of evidence that would prove that Bill O'Reilly is a huge Fighting Irish leprechaun come to life with actual fists and ill-fitting pants.
"Hey! Lawyer person! Shut up. Listen to me. Hey! I'm suing my ex-wife and we're going to court now! Is it written up yet? What's wrong with suing her for all the money I had to give her to get away from me? Let's get cracking on this!" And then Bill screams and throws a lamp at the wall and bellows like he just got stabbed with one of those Game of Thrones swords. Only an Irishman knows what I'm talking about.
You can well imagine the scene of old Bill, screaming and pounding things and throwing salt shakers and coffee mugs at scurrying law clerks as the details of the suit were being decided. The guy must be a peach to work for. If this delays the release of his next book, "Killing James Garfield the President Not the Cat You Shithead," it will cause tremors in the celebrity book business.
I think O'Reilly needs a lawyer with guts. I think he needs a friend who maybe served as a merchant marine or a pile driver machine operator who can wrap a big, meaty hand around his neck and explain to him how things work.
O’Reilly continued to meddle with McPhilmy and her new family as their divorce made its way through the court system. A court-appointed therapist testified last year that, when O’Reilly was alone with his and McPhilmy’s teenage daughter, O’Reilly would call his ex-wife an “adulterer,” said his daughter’s step-father was “not a good person,” and claimed that spending any time with McPhilmy and her new husband would “ruin her life.” The same therapist told the justice overseeing the ex-couple’s custody battle that O’Reilly and McPhilmy’s daughter witnessed her father drag her mother down a staircase by the neck.
See, the only thing O'Reilly understands is when someone's getting their neck worked on in a fit of rage. An inescapable truth has evaded this poor man, genius that he is. When your wife is done with you, she's done with you. Suing her for finding happiness with someone else is, well, a huge dick move. No amount of throwing a tantrum in public can change the fact that everyone in his life seems happier and more well-adjusted when they hide behind the furniture and turn off the lights when he shows up for visitation. Family values in action, hellz to the yeah.
The damage being done to O'Reilly's literary ambitions is staggering, though. Once people figure out that he's a perpetual rage machine, he may well end up being merely the Norman Mailer of his generation. That's a tough break for a guy who, for all intents and purposes, is probably the most bestest and greatest of all writers forever and ever, Amen.
*Good God, satire is dead, isn't it? If I had access to an audio track that would play as people read this, it would be a recording of a shot glass full of cheap whiskey being thrown through a plate-glass window, over and over again.
Maria Bamford's new show Lady Dynamite is getting a lot of write-ups on the websites that contain information that I sometimes use while blogging:
Conventional wisdom would have it that crippling mental illness isn't a good subject for a sitcom. But there's nothing conventional about Maria Bamford's brand of comedy. Fans of her stand-up and such through-the-rabbit hole projects like 2012's Maria Bamford: The Special Special Special— in which the 45-year-old comedian performs a taped set for just her parents in their living room — know that she isn't afraid to tap into very dark, very personal places in her work. So when Bamford announced she was developing a sitcom for Netflix that would touch on her career struggles in Hollywood and stints in psychiatric hospitals to treat a bipolar disorder, you expected something different. And Lady Dynamite, which toggles between our heroine trying to land acting gigs in Hollywood and her time in a mental hospital in her real-life hometown of Duluth, Minnesota (and premieres in full tomorrow night on the streaming service), could not be a better introduction to her ability to slide between sunny absurdity and depressive reality in a blink.
It sounds like a great show in the making, and I'll definitely watch it. But I hate Rolling Stone and I am sorry I linked to them. At the end of the article, poor Maria has to get her apologies in early:
"I had wanted to go very dark for the dark moments. Just, you know, minutes of silence passing. That's how it truly is — these unbearable moments. But who knows if that makes for good television," she says with a laugh. "I mean, people die from illnesses like these. I was a little worried about that, so I hope it turned out to be respectful as well [as funny]. And if it isn't, I apologize, I apologize, I apologize. I apologize right up front for everything I've done and will do."
The truly daunting thing that comedians do nowadays is tell jokes and try to get shows on the air. No one has a sense of humor about anything anymore. The Internet amplifies the voices of people who are outraged. I'm fine with all of that--I run my own website so I can't ban myself and I can't stop showing up for work, so there's that. The real problem is when someone organizes a boycott of everything you say or do--that's not fun. It's almost better to be ignored and have no one read what you're writing, but I have no opinions about that.
As a relatively young man in 1909, E. M. Forster imagined pretty much how humans would live in the 21st Century.
The futuristic world portrayed in The Machine Stops is an eerily familiar one - people mostly communicate with each other via screens, the rarity of face-to-face interaction has rendered it awkward, and knowledge and ideas are only shared by a system that links every home.
Yet that world was imagined not by a contemporary writer but by the Edwardian author Edward Morgan Forster.
Best known for his novels about class and hypocrisy - Howards End, A Room With A View and A Passage To India - The Machine Stops was Forster's only foray into science fiction.
Published in 1909, it tells the story of a mother and son - Vashti and Kuno - who live in a post-apocalyptic world where people live individually in underground pods, described as being "like the cell of a bee", and have their needs provided for by the all-encompassing Machine.
It is a world where travel is rare, inhabitants communicate via video screens, and people have become so reliant on the Machine that they have begun to worship it as a living entity.
Now, aside from the fact that we haven't had an apocalypse and that we don't live in underground pods, Forster got a lot of things right. We are replacing our various Gods on a regular basis. We are emerging from centuries of class warfare and strife. And we are talking to one another through screens instead of face to face. Sounds pretty accurate to me.
The cinema of the 1980s produced a lot of ambitiously strange genre fiction, but only one movie of that era (or any era) starred a particle physicist who's also a race car driver, rock star, and neurosurgeon: W.D. Richter's 1984 B-movie masterwork The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension. It's a beloved-but-obscure cult hit, but it might be getting a high-profile reboot if Kevin Smith has his way. The writer, director, and podcaster told listeners of his Hollywood Babble-On podcast that he and MGM are developing a TV version of the story.
It apparently stemmed from Smith's recent turn directing an episode of the CW's The Flash. "Doin' that has opened up weird doors," Smith said in the podcast. "MGM said, 'Hey, we hear that you like Buckaroo Banzai.' ... So they called my agent and they were like, 'We think we'd like to talk to him about — y'know, we did — with Fargo, we took Fargo and turned it into a TV show and it's won awards and shit.' They were like, 'We have another property that we wanna do that with, and we were wondering if he's interested and has ever heard of Buckaroo Banzai.'"
He said he was interested, it having been a childhood favorite of his, and now he and MGM are apparently about to "take it out and try to find a home for it." Smith wants it to include the original cast — which featured Peter Weller, John Lithgow, Christopher Lloyd, and a young Jeff Goldblum — as villains, and wants the first season to reinterpret the plot of the movie before a second season that would go in a new direction. For those who disdain the idea of Smith helming this project, just remember the words of Buckaroo: "Don't be mean. We don't have to be mean. 'Cause remember: No matter where you go, there you are."
There's only one way to go with this--no self-referential bullshit. This is material that cannot be aware of itself. It has to be done straight and it has to take itself way too seriously. Anything else--anything coy, sly, satirical or winking at the audience through a busted-down fourth wall--and you've ruined it.
The idea that MTV had an understanding of American musical culture or the arts in general is laughable. You only had to live through the 1980s to know this:
With the benefit of hindsight, 1991 was a watershed year for rock music. That was the year of Pearl Jam’s Ten and Nirvana’s Nevermind. A documentary released in 1992 even referred to it as The Year Punk Broke. The alternative revolution was just entering its golden age, as evidenced by the popularity of the inaugural Lollapalooza. But MTV’s Kurt Loder and Tabitha Soren did not have the benefit of hindsight when they made a recap special called The Year In Rock: 1991, a long-forgotten program that has resurfaced, thanks to Reddit. What did Loder and Soren see when they looked back over the previous 12 months? “A pretty bad year” of slumping album sales and half-empty concert tours. Pearl Jam is not mentioned in the special, and Nirvana is relegated to a spotlight on new artists, alongside Color Me Badd and Marky Mark. “Smells Like Teen Spirit” is briefly used to accompany a segment about the Persian Gulf War.
Because MTV was situated in the Northeast of the United States, everything that it did was based on pressure from record companies. American music has always had a regional flavor, and that was ignored by the cultural elites based in New York City. If a certain label wanted an artist to break, they would put heavy pressure on MTV to play their video and on New York based publications to provide positive coverage. This could also mean gaining favorable coverage through what was loosely termed "MTV News" by making the artist available for exclusive material. If you deliver content, you can demand that it gets airtime. And if you were in the business of keeping these people happy, why wouldn't you look up the sales information and run with that? There was no alternative back then--you took what the labels handed you and you dealt with it. Now, you can tell them to fuck off.
Remember when Pidlar made a video with Nick Offerman? That's a video you would never have seen on MTV in the 1990s. Good God, they were so prudish it was a wonder anything made it onto the air.
I am so glad I ignored MTV for all of those years. It's always a shock for me to go and find the "official" video for songs from the 1980s and 1990s that I liked; I never had a chance to see any of that stuff because I couldn't be bothered to engage "music television" at all. And, yes, MTV's 120 Minutes was a joke then and it's a joke now.
Here's a little something else about that movie about Ronald Reagan that is not going to get made:
McKay found himself in the middle of a truly bizarre nontroversy recently when the Gary Sanchez-produced Reagan, a film project rumored to star Will Ferrell as the late Republican commander-in-chief as he struggles with the effects of Alzheimer’s during his second term, came under heavy fire from conservatives—including members of Reagan’s own family—for allegedly mocking the oft-heralded politician.
The problem? Nobody really knew if the film was going to mock Reagan for his illness. Outlets simply saw Ferrell as a rumored candidate for the role and their imaginations ran amok.
“I’ve never been that close to a story like that where so little information became such a tidal wave. It was really crazy to behold,” says McKay. “People hadn’t even read the script, it was just three words: ‘Reagan, Ferrell, Alzheimer’s,’ and it became this huge thing. Finally, The Hollywood Reporter wrote a piece where they actually read the script and thought it was a really thoughtful script and tender towards Reagan, but yeah, it’s this culture we live in. It’s all about clicks, clicks, clicks, and hits, hits, hits.”
“I kept saying when that story snowballed, ‘Is there anyone who really thinks Will Ferrell would make a comedy about a horrible disease like Alzheimer’s?’ In a million years no one would do that!” he continues. “You’d have people on the left and right coming after you. I think it’s more about the deification of Ronald Reagan, where you can’t go near the subject of Ronald Reagan. Remember all the brouhaha over that Reagan miniseries? That miniseries was so soft, but nobody wants to hear anything near the reality of Reagan’s eight years as president.”
Now, no one should try to advise Adam McKay or Will Ferrell about which movies they should make when, clearly, this should have been a Russell Brand and Sacha Baron Cohen buddy flick all along. Whoever owns the rights to this story should have submitted the idea and the script to Patti Davis first. That way, she could have taken some points on the back end and given you the green light.
Patti Davis made a very astute and public relations-savvy condemnation appear to be wholly sympathetic when she denounced the project, which, as others have pointed out, is sympathetic and sensitive to the topic of Alzheimer's while telling a very compelling story. The fact that it involved Reagan and a period of time when he was carrying a gun around in a briefcase and had access to the nation's nuclear codes is something no one polite should ever bring up, okay?
From now on, anyone who references the fact that Reagan spent several years as president while suffering from Alzheimer's needs to go see Patti beforehand. Historians, you have been warned.
Actress Minnie Driver is not happy with her neighbor's construction and she's trying to stop it from happening with an arsenal of baby food jars filled with black paint.
A new lawsuit obtained by TMZ claims that Driver, 46, is throwing the paint-filled jars at her neighbor Daniel Perelmutter's walls.
Perelmutter — who recently had a heart transplant — is asking the court to remove an electronic gate the two share as Driver has cut off his access.
He also states in the suit that the "Good Will Hunting" actress will block construction workers for up to 8 hours at a time.
This isn't the first time the two have sparred in the Hollywood Hills.
Just last week, Driver and Perelmutter, 74, were screaming so loudly at each other that cops had to intervene.
In 2015, the English-born actress claimed that her neighbor told her to "f--k off and die" on several occasions in her driveway. She even got a restraining order against Perelmutter at the time.
However, Perelmutter claimed that Driver was trying to run him down with her car as the two have been involved in an ongoing land dispute.
Anybody can snap and anybody can get involved in a desperately destructive confrontation with their neighbor. What I don't understand is, how can something like this get so far out of control without involving mediation or negotiations of some kind? Construction projects in a residential area are two things--inconvenient at times but temporary if handled properly. Do you know what you can do to solve this problem? Develop the ability to visualize your property when it looks normal again and ignore what's happening. That's basic problem solving 101. And if you can't do that, lose your mind, I guess.
Ever lived in a house where vinyl siding is being installed in the dead of winter? Check. Ever lived in a house while a brand new home is being built next door and it takes nine months instead of three? Yep. And have you ever lived in a place where the little neighbor kids don't speak any English but decide to throw rocks at your house because you're an American? We have a winner. I've been through all three in the last five years and, yeah, I wanted to snap and start throwing baby jars full of black paint. That was my go-to option right from the start. But, somehow, I got through it. And by that I mean, I resorted to whipping hot pennies and spraying bleach out of a power washer.
I don't know what Miss Driver is going through, but it sounds cray-cray and she should have temporary high fences or golf course safety screens installed until her neighbor is done screwing everything up.
I have seen the new Captain American movie (this is the one about the Civil War) and it was a fun movie. I have no idea what this guy is talking about:
Convinced that the American superpower has reaped more bad than good, and thus must be checked by both the government and the U.N., Iron Man—no matter his love of weaponized suits of armor—comes to embody the more self-critical, dove-ish, nanny state-advocating Left. Meanwhile, Cap’s opposition to imperious federal oversight, and his belief that he knows best and should be allowed to act accordingly in whatever international jurisdiction he sees fit, marks him as a figure of the Right—replete with a sidekick, Falcon (Anthony Mackie), who performs both surveillance and tactical strikes with his own personal aerial drone.
The fact that these characters once held opposite positions—Iron Man the armament-loving bad boy free agent (decked out in Republican red), Captain America the dutiful by-the-books soldier (outfitted in Democratic blue)—lends the film some dark irony about the way global conflicts warp deep-rooted convictions. But make no mistake about it: Civil War is the moment at which the Marvel Cinematic Universe most clearly embraces its conservative ethos.
While Iron Man’s attitude seems practical, it’s also ultimately demarcated as wrong. The outside-the-law Captain America is this film’s unqualified hero from the start, when he’s presented as the righteous alternative to Iron Man’s collaborative cowardice. And it’s solidified by its conclusion, when his conspiracy theory hunches are proven correct—thereby proving he’s more trustworthy than Iron Man, Thunderbolt Ross, the U.N., or any other administrative body. Furthermore, Bucky, the friend he’s driven to protect, is a case study in what happens to superbeings when they’re controlled by governments: they’re transformed into murderous, amoral assassin-slaves.
Hey, that's great, but it's a comic book movie. It's not a political movie at all and I can say that because it didn't have Thor in it and he didn't call for parliamentary elections. Nothing about this article even resembles the film, as far as I'm concerned. In fact, there's an actual scarlet witch in the film and she's not really a witch and she does not do any damage whatsoever to witches throughout the world. I thought Elizabeth Olsen was the best thing in this movie, and I think the new Spiderman and Black Panther movies are going to be amazing.
Where I believe the idea of this being a political film goes off the rails is when it fails to take into consideration that we're looking at an alternate reality. None of the situations in our political reality match what's real in this film. For example, in our world, none of these characters, none of the things they have done, and none of the things that have happened exist in our world. Why you would then try to compare the two and say because Bucky so and so says this to that guy it means he has no respect for the new Speaker of the House is just way, way off, man.
In the analysis above, you could flip Iron Man and Captain America. In point of fact, Iron Man is telling everyone they have to "register" with the government and accept supervision. That's a liberal idea--you have to register yourself as a weapon, meaning your guns, you have to submit to the authority of the government, and you have to accept greater regulation of your activities. The conservative idea would be to resist government supervision, regulation and the invasion of privacy. The conservative would try to come down on the side of being independent and able to determine what you do and, while that skews libertarian in some ways, it does speak to the emergence of a political divide on many, many issues. So, yeah. The whole article is just way, way off and it just doesn't make any sense.
Daniel Bruhl, who was probably the second best thing in the whole movie, presents a villain who is going to blow your mind at the end of the film. What motivates him runs to the heart of the movie--what do you do when your actions have consequences for people you don't even know?
And if you haven't seen ALL of the Marvel movies up till now, you should not expect to get all of the things going on in this film. If you haven't seen Ant Man, don't see this film until you do. I had no idea what was going on and I felt like a dumbass.
Can someone explain to me why people who don't live in America got to see Captain America before Americans did? Is that jingoistic bullshit?
The superhero tentpole — embraced by critics — is likewise expected to pull in massive numbers when opening in the U.S. on May 6, the start of the summer box office.
Doing Avengers-like business, Disney and Marvel Studios' Captain America: Civil War opened to a massive $200.2 million at the foreign box office, one of the biggest starts of all time and nearly matching the launch of last year's Avengers: Age of Ultron.
In some individual markets, Civil War came in ahead of Ultron, as it scored the biggest debut of all time for any film in Mexico ($20.6 million), Brazil ($12.3 million) and the Philippines ($7.5 million). All told, Civil War rolled out in about 63 percent of the foreign marketplace this weekend.
This is the third Captain America movie, but it's really the third Avengers movie. Or is this a prequel for the third and fourth Avengers movies? I can't even tell anymore.
Why they didn't make all of these movies about Loki is beyond my limited grasp.