this album rocks too (even though the website doesn’t).
BLOG | SUBSCRIBE | SEARCH, ARCHIVES, ETC.
archive for the‘television’ category
empire state of mind
Monday, September 21st, 2009
found : from tv / recap
Wednesday, August 26th, 2009
so. i haven’t posted anything in forever and i had a great reason to. i was working on an awesome show called FAMILY, written and directed by Tina Satter, artistic director of Half Straddle - a new awesome theater company that i have the pleasure of being a part of. click here for more info and to read our awesome reviews!
i start grad school at Pratt next week for Communications Design and i’m kind of getting my life together in order to make the transition back into student-hood as smooth as possible. (i got a freakin’ student i.d.! awes!!!) part of that includes rearranging my apartment to make a better work space, and in the process throw out a ton of shit. in my riffling through papers today, i found the following notes i took from watching the home shopping network at my parents house last year. whenever i’m back in NJ, i will only watch the home shopping network (i don’t own a tv myself). the people on that channel are the best bullshitters in the world. here are my notes :
CLASSIC WAIST
CROSS STRETCH
DENIM BOOT CUT PANTS
“and you do have side slits…”
“oh! no shock there, the velvet shirt is sold out.”
“it will be a go-to pant…”
amazing.
so. i haven’t posted anything in forever and i had a great reason to. i was working on an awesome show called FAMILY, written and directed by Tina Satter, artistic director of Half Straddle - a new awesome theater company that i have the pleasure of being a part of. click here for more info and to read our awesome reviews!
i start grad school at Pratt next week for Communications Design and i’m kind of getting my life together in order to make the transition back into student-hood as smooth as possible. (i got a freakin’ student i.d.! awes!!!) part of that includes rearranging my apartment to make a better work space, and in the process throw out a ton of shit. in my riffling through papers today, i found the following notes i took from watching the home shopping network at my parents house last year. whenever i’m back in NJ, i will only watch the home shopping network (i don’t own a tv myself). the people on that channel are the best bullshitters in the world. here are my notes :
CLASSIC WAIST
CROSS STRETCH
DENIM BOOT CUT PANTS“and you do have side slits…”
“oh! no shock there, the velvet shirt is sold out.”
“it will be a go-to pant…”
amazing.
o, happy day?
Monday, January 19th, 2009
when it was announced that openly gay episcopalian bishop, gene robinson was to make the invocation at the inauguration-celebrating “we are one” concert, aired on HBO yesterday, the gays were happy again. we momentarily forgave obama for his pick of rick warren (that guy who thinks we’re pedophiles) to do the invocation at the inauguration.
but of course, there was still trouble in river city. for some strange reason, bishop robinson’s invocation didn’t make it to the HBO broadcast. and who’s fault was that? afterelton.com talked to HBO about it :
Contacted Sunday night by AfterElton.com concerning the exclusion of Robinson’s prayer, HBO said via email, “The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show.”
Uncertain as to whether or not that meant that HBO was contractually prevented from airing the pre-show, we followed up, but none of the spokespeople available Sunday night could answer that question with absolute certainty.
However, it does seem that the network’s position is that they had nothing to do with the decision.
what’s more, as soon as robinson took the stage, the speakers on the mall “malfunctioned” and most of the estimated 750,000 atendees missed his opening remarks. lloyd phillips write in a comment from boxturtlebulliten.com :
I was at the national mall for the concert, about 1/2 a mile from the Lincoln Memorial, and the moment Gene Robinson took to the stage, the speakers went out. We couldn’t hear a word of the entire invocation. Of course minutes before when Elmo was on the jumbotrons speaking about unity, everything was fine. The moment the gay bishop takes to the stage suddenly there is technical issues. Of course when I get home I find out that HBO cut Gene Robinson from the footage. It’s really horrible and sad. I really don’t think it was a “day of unity” for everyone.
luckily some christian with a camera caught it on tape :
also apparently, the DC gay men’s chorus wasn’t announced when they performed at the event. they backed up notoriously straight singer, josh groban.
wow. this olive branch tastes like poop.
i’m still mad.
xo c
ps - more updates about the dog soon.
when it was announced that openly gay episcopalian bishop, gene robinson was to make the invocation at the inauguration-celebrating “we are one” concert, aired on HBO yesterday, the gays were happy again. we momentarily forgave obama for his pick of rick warren (that guy who thinks we’re pedophiles) to do the invocation at the inauguration.
but of course, there was still trouble in river city. for some strange reason, bishop robinson’s invocation didn’t make it to the HBO broadcast. and who’s fault was that? afterelton.com talked to HBO about it :
Contacted Sunday night by AfterElton.com concerning the exclusion of Robinson’s prayer, HBO said via email, “The producer of the concert has said that the Presidential Inaugural Committee made the decision to keep the invocation as part of the pre-show.”
Uncertain as to whether or not that meant that HBO was contractually prevented from airing the pre-show, we followed up, but none of the spokespeople available Sunday night could answer that question with absolute certainty.
However, it does seem that the network’s position is that they had nothing to do with the decision.
what’s more, as soon as robinson took the stage, the speakers on the mall “malfunctioned” and most of the estimated 750,000 atendees missed his opening remarks. lloyd phillips write in a comment from boxturtlebulliten.com :
I was at the national mall for the concert, about 1/2 a mile from the Lincoln Memorial, and the moment Gene Robinson took to the stage, the speakers went out. We couldn’t hear a word of the entire invocation. Of course minutes before when Elmo was on the jumbotrons speaking about unity, everything was fine. The moment the gay bishop takes to the stage suddenly there is technical issues. Of course when I get home I find out that HBO cut Gene Robinson from the footage. It’s really horrible and sad. I really don’t think it was a “day of unity” for everyone.
luckily some christian with a camera caught it on tape :
also apparently, the DC gay men’s chorus wasn’t announced when they performed at the event. they backed up notoriously straight singer, josh groban.
wow. this olive branch tastes like poop.
i’m still mad.
xo c
ps - more updates about the dog soon.
tv tears
Monday, June 2nd, 2008
i don’t own a television.
when i was a kid i would watch a lot of tv. i remember a couple of summers in high school when i would just sit at home all day and watch home decorating shows on the learning channel, waiting for my parents to get home from work upon which we would watch even more tv. part of the philosophy of not owning a television (i’ve been told) is having a life with less distractions. i don’t really find that truthful as i am constantly distracted. it’s hard for me to even ride the subway and read without seeing someone or something that gets me thinking about someone else. there’s too much damn stimulus in this city. that’s beside the point. i guess the thing i like about not owning a tv is to not have forced encounters with commercials. and even that’s kind of bullshit because i work in times square, the ad capital of the world.
regardless.
there is something to be said for the emergence of art in new media at all times of technological development, and i’m happy to say that television has come a long way. (don’t worry internet, there’s still a lot of gaps for you to fill in).
the one tv show that i watch regularly (via itunes - not that b.s. ‘watch it on the internet with super low quality and commercials’ thingy) is ‘lost.’ in fact, i just finished watching the season four finale. like katie, i cried twice. and it made me think: there’s only one other tv show that i can remember watching that has made me cry - tons of movies, yes - but only one other tv show. no, not ‘my so called life,’ but ’six feet under.’ (i mashed up promo shots from each in today’s header image).
remember the series finale of that show? i was bawling. maybe it’s because it was revolutionary television in the sense that it took you on an intimate journey through some fucked up people’s lives (and even some gay ones!) and then showed you how they all die so you don’t get to live happily ever after imagining what adventures they might be having - like we all do with ‘friends.’ not.
i can’t help compare these two shows - ‘lost’ / ’six feet under’ - if not purely for the fact that they both get me. get me good. i was in tears when nate died, and i was in tears when desmond finally met penny again. but looking at both shows objectively, i can cite specific differences in quality. ’six feet under’ featured striking performances from a slew of brilliant actors and featured ground-breaking directorial work by a slew of brilliant directors. lost has a bunch of hot people that came out of the woodwork (and ‘party of five’) and landed the sweetest gig ever - hangin’ out in hawaii, getting dirty and acting. you can’t even compare the performance level of these two casts. or the writing. if ‘lost’ didn’t have a scrupulously crafted sound score, the meaningless plot-advancing dialogue would read like a choose your own adventure novel. but something troubles me. even though all signs point to ’six’ being the better show, i still find myself comparably moved by both. how can this be? what’s the point of studying acting, trying to get good, if it’ll all get tacked up to emotional mapping underscoring and camera filters?
i guess the point is there are many ways to move people. hey. even the same person. even me.
the subtlety of frances conroy’s performance or jin exploding on a boat. same.
but then i look back at the season finale of six feet under and i realize that that amazing last montage sequence when claire drives to new york and envisions how her family members die, is set to a sia song. yeah. sia. sia some-people-have-real-problems sia. sia sold-at-starbucks sia. i don’t know. what does all this mean?
are my emotions so easily misled? manipulated? and if i can crack just by a swell in the viola section then what about all the other millions of saps - much thinner-skinned than i - that watch this stuff all the time? does the advent of brilliant new content - true to life, beautifully realistic - result in perpetual emotional distraction? does it limit the tv addict from connecting to anything real?
if only aristotle knew that this is what drama would become. the goal to reduce as many people possible to puddles of mush without them knowing why.
what would brecht say?
would he be pissed off that the only coherent thought we have in our pixellated brains after we watch a gut-wrenching scene is ‘when’s the next episode on?’ versus, ‘how can we have a better government?’ or ‘what are the defining qualities of the human condition?’ not that we should judge all art by how much it educates, but should it be something we think about when we’re dealing with television - a media so much more massive than it ever was intended to be? the amount of social influence this medium has is mind-blowing. this is no poor little theatre.
regardless.
i’m not sure what the thesis of this is. but i do know that funneling all this information through the blogosphere does leave me hungry for one thing : more.
holy shit. i mean, we have to wait til january for new episodes of ‘lost.’ maybe i’ll use the time i’ve spent watching it weekly wisely. or maybe i’ll just catch up on my ‘ab-fab.’
i don’t own a television.
when i was a kid i would watch a lot of tv. i remember a couple of summers in high school when i would just sit at home all day and watch home decorating shows on the learning channel, waiting for my parents to get home from work upon which we would watch even more tv. part of the philosophy of not owning a television (i’ve been told) is having a life with less distractions. i don’t really find that truthful as i am constantly distracted. it’s hard for me to even ride the subway and read without seeing someone or something that gets me thinking about someone else. there’s too much damn stimulus in this city. that’s beside the point. i guess the thing i like about not owning a tv is to not have forced encounters with commercials. and even that’s kind of bullshit because i work in times square, the ad capital of the world.
regardless.
there is something to be said for the emergence of art in new media at all times of technological development, and i’m happy to say that television has come a long way. (don’t worry internet, there’s still a lot of gaps for you to fill in).
the one tv show that i watch regularly (via itunes - not that b.s. ‘watch it on the internet with super low quality and commercials’ thingy) is ‘lost.’ in fact, i just finished watching the season four finale. like katie, i cried twice. and it made me think: there’s only one other tv show that i can remember watching that has made me cry - tons of movies, yes - but only one other tv show. no, not ‘my so called life,’ but ’six feet under.’ (i mashed up promo shots from each in today’s header image).
remember the series finale of that show? i was bawling. maybe it’s because it was revolutionary television in the sense that it took you on an intimate journey through some fucked up people’s lives (and even some gay ones!) and then showed you how they all die so you don’t get to live happily ever after imagining what adventures they might be having - like we all do with ‘friends.’ not.
i can’t help compare these two shows - ‘lost’ / ’six feet under’ - if not purely for the fact that they both get me. get me good. i was in tears when nate died, and i was in tears when desmond finally met penny again. but looking at both shows objectively, i can cite specific differences in quality. ’six feet under’ featured striking performances from a slew of brilliant actors and featured ground-breaking directorial work by a slew of brilliant directors. lost has a bunch of hot people that came out of the woodwork (and ‘party of five’) and landed the sweetest gig ever - hangin’ out in hawaii, getting dirty and acting. you can’t even compare the performance level of these two casts. or the writing. if ‘lost’ didn’t have a scrupulously crafted sound score, the meaningless plot-advancing dialogue would read like a choose your own adventure novel. but something troubles me. even though all signs point to ’six’ being the better show, i still find myself comparably moved by both. how can this be? what’s the point of studying acting, trying to get good, if it’ll all get tacked up to emotional mapping underscoring and camera filters?
i guess the point is there are many ways to move people. hey. even the same person. even me.
the subtlety of frances conroy’s performance or jin exploding on a boat. same.
but then i look back at the season finale of six feet under and i realize that that amazing last montage sequence when claire drives to new york and envisions how her family members die, is set to a sia song. yeah. sia. sia some-people-have-real-problems sia. sia sold-at-starbucks sia. i don’t know. what does all this mean?
are my emotions so easily misled? manipulated? and if i can crack just by a swell in the viola section then what about all the other millions of saps - much thinner-skinned than i - that watch this stuff all the time? does the advent of brilliant new content - true to life, beautifully realistic - result in perpetual emotional distraction? does it limit the tv addict from connecting to anything real?
if only aristotle knew that this is what drama would become. the goal to reduce as many people possible to puddles of mush without them knowing why.
what would brecht say?
would he be pissed off that the only coherent thought we have in our pixellated brains after we watch a gut-wrenching scene is ‘when’s the next episode on?’ versus, ‘how can we have a better government?’ or ‘what are the defining qualities of the human condition?’ not that we should judge all art by how much it educates, but should it be something we think about when we’re dealing with television - a media so much more massive than it ever was intended to be? the amount of social influence this medium has is mind-blowing. this is no poor little theatre.
regardless.
i’m not sure what the thesis of this is. but i do know that funneling all this information through the blogosphere does leave me hungry for one thing : more.
holy shit. i mean, we have to wait til january for new episodes of ‘lost.’ maybe i’ll use the time i’ve spent watching it weekly wisely. or maybe i’ll just catch up on my ‘ab-fab.’
aka
Wednesday, May 21st, 2008
i’m laying on a king-sized bed in aka, a hotel near central park where my friend amanda’s company is putting her up. we’re watching top chef on a sony flatscreen across the room. there’s some drama on tv with a team of chefs that’s trying to execute an asian food menu. shit’s going down.
earlier tonight we had some good sushi at omido. the desserts rocked. i ate this awesome mango parfait with marscapone cheese and amanda had this choccy cake. our friend ashley had some crazy truffle thingies that you dip in tea sauce and eat with a vanilla flan. weird. but yum.
this place is sweet. the bathtub looks awesome. amanda said she took a bath but didn’t notice the awesome, designer bath salts so she has to try again.
once we got back to her hotel we watched a show on the CW called “farmer wants a wife.” it was ridic.
omg. i’ve been here for over an hour and amanda just told me that she has beer. i guess it’s ok. i still owe her 20 bones. i want a nice hotel to escape to in other cities. rock.
i’m laying on a king-sized bed in aka, a hotel near central park where my friend amanda’s company is putting her up. we’re watching top chef on a sony flatscreen across the room. there’s some drama on tv with a team of chefs that’s trying to execute an asian food menu. shit’s going down.
earlier tonight we had some good sushi at omido. the desserts rocked. i ate this awesome mango parfait with marscapone cheese and amanda had this choccy cake. our friend ashley had some crazy truffle thingies that you dip in tea sauce and eat with a vanilla flan. weird. but yum.
this place is sweet. the bathtub looks awesome. amanda said she took a bath but didn’t notice the awesome, designer bath salts so she has to try again.
once we got back to her hotel we watched a show on the CW called “farmer wants a wife.” it was ridic.
omg. i’ve been here for over an hour and amanda just told me that she has beer. i guess it’s ok. i still owe her 20 bones. i want a nice hotel to escape to in other cities. rock.
re-branded
Friday, May 9th, 2008
oxygen, the cable channel for women ages 18-49 (according to their press release) - recently purchased by NBC for $925 million - is rebranding. this means dumping the old “oh!” logo, for a sleeker, yellower look (seen above on mo’nique, host of oxygen’s show F.A.T. chance).
i became interested in this because i noticed a print ad at the 49th street NRW station displaying the new logo and describing their target audience as the “O generation : trenders, spenders and recommenders.” the ad was emblazoned with the wedding-ring-like symbol and featured ‘attractive and diverse’ women seeming to march through a mall with shopping bags in tote. surprise: this disturbed me.
when i got home, i read this article about how oxygen is basically targeting young women who want to look good and feel good, and are comfortable spending money on means to do so (read: rich). to me it was just another nauseating example of how our society marginalizes women by persuading them to think they are only worth what they buy - namely what they buy to make them look better. despite the catchiness of the rhyme, witnessing the embodiment of the idea of a cycle of consumerism irks me even without being attached to a misogynistic agenda - making this double-’ew.’
on the other hand, in some ways i am a trender, spender and recommender myself. and i do enjoy the cheesiness of some of oxygen’s programming (whenever i get a chance to flick on to it at my parents’ house - i don’t own a television) - but i still say lifetime’s better.
but whatever superficial attraction i may have to this kind of material it is seriously outweighed by my awareness of the societal dangers it induces and more importantly by the fact that my generation (men and women) is being forced to claim yet another fucking letter.
oxygen, the cable channel for women ages 18-49 (according to their press release) - recently purchased by NBC for $925 million - is rebranding. this means dumping the old “oh!” logo, for a sleeker, yellower look (seen above on mo’nique, host of oxygen’s show F.A.T. chance).
i became interested in this because i noticed a print ad at the 49th street NRW station displaying the new logo and describing their target audience as the “O generation : trenders, spenders and recommenders.” the ad was emblazoned with the wedding-ring-like symbol and featured ‘attractive and diverse’ women seeming to march through a mall with shopping bags in tote. surprise: this disturbed me.
when i got home, i read this article about how oxygen is basically targeting young women who want to look good and feel good, and are comfortable spending money on means to do so (read: rich). to me it was just another nauseating example of how our society marginalizes women by persuading them to think they are only worth what they buy - namely what they buy to make them look better. despite the catchiness of the rhyme, witnessing the embodiment of the idea of a cycle of consumerism irks me even without being attached to a misogynistic agenda - making this double-’ew.’
on the other hand, in some ways i am a trender, spender and recommender myself. and i do enjoy the cheesiness of some of oxygen’s programming (whenever i get a chance to flick on to it at my parents’ house - i don’t own a television) - but i still say lifetime’s better.
but whatever superficial attraction i may have to this kind of material it is seriously outweighed by my awareness of the societal dangers it induces and more importantly by the fact that my generation (men and women) is being forced to claim yet another fucking letter.