Blog I Endorse

cuckoo gif

Tex Avery gifs


He turned to animated television commercials, most notably the Raid commercials of the 1960s and 1970s (in which cartoon insects, confronted by the bug killer, screamed “RAID!” and died flamboyantly) and Frito-Lay’s controversial mascot, the Frito Bandito.


Frito Bandito

dogs gif

Videos discussed last night

from a conversation about whether my friends should get a goat:

from a conversation about Tinashe:

Mountaineering movies on Netflix Instant, ranked.

Touching The Void

I like watching movies about mountain climbing, and I think I’ve seen all the ones avail on Netflix Instant.

1) Touching The Void

See Touching The Void.  One of the best documentaries, period.  Incredible story, great twists, so intense but also there’s a lovable semi-schlub who got caught up in things.

2) Beyond The Edge beyond the edge 3

Very cool.  Doc/reenactment about the first successful Everest ascent.  Worth watching just for the fashion, the style on these guys was rad.

beyond the edge 1A great story of internal competition as well, as the team members were vying to be the guy who got to make the final ascent.  The brash New Zealanders against the stuffy English public school guys.  Edmund Hillary and Tenzing such cool examples of calm badassery.  Hadn’t occurred to me that Hillary, who in his old age was usually portrayed as a kindly old hero, was also of course an extremely intense, driven, and competitive athlete, more Kobe than Dalai Lama.

There’s lots too on the great John Hunt, who organized the expedition.

Also has some of the clearest visualizations of Everest’s geography I’ve seen.  You can really wrap your head finally around, like, where the Khumbu ice fall is.

Everest map

3) Nordwand/Northface

Some great shots of old school climbing.  But it’s set in 1936, it’s in German, and the characters are not not Nazis enough to really get behind.

4) The Summit

Compelling characters, a good story, kind of frustratingly told.  Odd editing choices botch a compelling narrative of how fuckup x fuckup x fuckup + misfortune = catastrophe.

5) Everest IMAX

Some cool shots I guess but this is elementary stuff.  We’re past this.

Would most like to have on Netflix:

Valley Uprising

The Blue Light

K2.  What is this movie?  It started as a play?


Sarah Paulson

Paulson 1

Ryan Murphy sees Sarah Paulson and says, “that woman should be in every season of my show American Horror Story.  A witch, a freak, a tortured soul — if it’s horrifying, she’s the one.”

Paulson 3

Steve McQueen sees Sarah Paulson and says, “that woman should play the worst, meanest, southern plantation woman ever seen in film.”

Paulson 2

“Truly, I’ve found the actress who can make the everyday cruelty of a slaveowner’s wife comprehensible.”

Paulson 4

Aaron Sorkin sees Sarah Paulson and says:

“That’s the funniest woman in America.”


Who was it who recommended this to me?  Hayes?  Thanks!  It’s on Netflix Instant.

Heyerdahl’s third wife was Miss France 1954:

Stand up for The Interview (as a movie)

There’s a strain I’ve noticed in pieces about The Interview of offhandedly dismissing the movie itself.

Here’s Ross Douthat, for example:

But if you care about the movies, then what’s happened to Seth Rogen and James Franco’s comedy is also related to the depressing story that Harris has to tell. Not because a coarse comedy about two idiot celebrities assassinating the North Korean dictator represents some kind of brilliant alternative to the sameness of sequels, but because its fate will become (already has become, in fact) a cautionary tale in an industry that’s already so risk-averse, so fearful of political controversy, so determined to make movies that sell equally well in every overseas market, that the North Koreans themselves were one the last available real-world villains for its blockbusters.

Or Clooney:

This was a dumb comedy that was about to come out. With the First Amendment, you’re never protecting Jefferson; it’s usually protecting some guy who’s burning a flag or doing something stupid. This is a silly comedy, but the truth is, what it now says about us is a whole lot.

I already took this fight to Twitter, vs. The National Review Online’s AJ Delgado:


(source is Box Office Mojo)

I don’t get it.

I have a clear bias here: I have never met but like Franco and Rogen and I like people involved in The Interview.  But I don’t think that’s what got me steamed.

The Interview, to me, seems like a bold, interesting movie starring two actors who’ve been making cool, interesting choices for over a decade.

Yeah, it’s easy to make fun of James Franco’s pretentiousness (and what were you like at 22?). But you know what? a) he’s done it better than you and b) fuck you. Here’s a dude who’s using his fame to explore whatever art or avenue engages his curiosity. What do you want from the guy? He’s spending his time and energy experimenting, exploring, and improving himself.

And Rogen? Here is a consistently positive, jolly presence in American public life who’s sharp and self-effacing and honest. Watch him speak bluntly to Letterman about smoking weed:

Are you as open about your habits, crutches, and pleasures?

These guys are both terrific actors, they are smart, and they are entrepreneurial.

They made a bold, risky movie. Yeah, it’s got dumb jokes in it. All successful movie comedies have dumb jokes in them. All comedy that’s worth anything risks being silly.

But these guys are making what they love. Franco and Rogen are unabashed about their love of dumb fun laughs. Along the way, the movie they made also appears to be about fame, global politics, the intersection of news and entertainment, friendship, male insecurity — how many A list actors with the clout to make stuff are consistently picking projects as inventive as these guys?

Look, I haven’t seen the movie. Maybe it’s terrible. Maybe it’s amazing. Probably, like 90% of movies, it’s in between. But I don’t like a knee jerk critical reaction that it’s dumb. (I don’t really like critics at all, to be honest.) If you think The Interview sucks, then you star in one of the best TV shows ever, go on to make cool, fun, talked-about and also wildly profitable comedies, or win an Oscar for single handedly carrying a pretty experimental movie that not only was a huge hit but also cinematically daring and innovative, and build the clout to create your own $44 million projects on the strength of your talent and very perceptive grasp of what stories an audience of millions wants to see.

(I guess Clooney has done all that.  OK, Clooney gets a pass.)

But of course, you can’t think The Interview sucks because you haven’t gotten to see it!

What cheesed me off, of course, is that I think all this shows a snobbish, lazy, kneejerk, snarky lack of respect for comedy, and how hard it is to make comedy.

In these distressing times, we should be honoring our comedians.  Even if they do make a lot of dick jokes.

Oh Werner

“It takes me 5 days to write a screenplay,” said Werner. “If you’re spending more than two weeks on it something’s wrong.


“If you don’t have a deal in two days, you won’t have a deal in two years”

From here.


Good line from the movie “His Girl Friday”

Next time you hear from me I will be riding in a Rolls Royce giving interviews about success.

Saving Mr. Banks

* Man, I thought this was a deeply, deeply interesting movie.

* Everybody in the movie does a great job.  It is a well-made movie, the story’s really artfully told.  I’s not like I remember Mary Poppins super well, but they lay that stuff in just right.  I straight up enjoyed this movie.

* But: part of what I liked about it was the thrilling feeling that it was so unbelievably shameless.  John Lee Hancock directed this movie, he directed The Blind Side, which was perfectly, amazingly shameless.  Or was it not that shameless, is the world really like this and I’m just jaded/cynical and I need movies like this to bring me back to the fullness of humanity??

* What’s at the heart of this movie?  What is this movie saying about cynicism, honesty, manipulation, entertainment? There’s Paul Giamatti talking about his handicapped daughter?  Is this a play on being a shamelessly cornball movie?  Does it matter?  Isn’t the argument of this movie that putting something like that into your movie for the purpose of bending your emotions and giving you hope is ok?  Is the moral that if you let down your cynicism for one second you’ll find yourself moved, and that feeling, that person, is your truer, better self?  But how can the ends of that message come across if the means is truly shameless manipulation?

* How much is it on me, the audience,  to agree to not be cynical, and how much is it on them, the storytellers, to not then manipulate me?  What’s the deal we make when we suspend disbelief and what counts as a betrayal of that deal?

* At one point Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) looks at P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson) but it’s shot so he’s nearly looking to camera, to the audience.  “Trust me,” he says.  What are we to make of a movie made by Disney (the company) where the story of the movie is Disney (the man) making the case for manipulative entertainment to a reluctant audience?  Where there’s a scene of a cold, repressed  woman reduced to tears in a movie theater by the power of a movie?

* Saving Mr. Banks exists at some  intersection where cynicism and idealism cross over each other again.  If Disney makes a movie that runs right at some of the issues that make cynics so knee-jerk scornful of “Disney,” isn’t that kind of interesting and cool?  Even if (of course) the ultimate product is in the end pretty pro-Disney?  Or is it just nth level propaganda?  Does it matter, if it’s fun and moving to watch?

* now look I’m not comparing anyone to Nazis or anything: but a thing that has stuck with me since I learned it is the idea that Goebbels was continually stunned and amazed at how much better and more effective the American “propaganda” movies that were coming out of a non-state directed Hollywood were than the products of Germany’s completely controlled machine, big example being Mrs. Miniver.

* I don’t want to deal with the idea of possible sexism in Saving Mr. Banks, but I mean the story of this movie is an uptight old woman is seduced by a powerful and calming man and when she finally submits herself to him after a lengthy courtship she experiences an extreme emotional release (right?)

* MORE!: the moviemakers monkeyed with the history at least a little bit, but how much?  This article, “Saving Mr. Banks Is A Corporate, Borderline Sexist Spoonful of Lies” from LA Weekly (which I only learned about when the co-screenwriter got in a Twitter spat with the reviewer) would suggest quite a bit.  This New Yorker article from 2005, though, suggests it’s hard to know, that maybe P. L. Travers played it a lot of different ways depending on who she was talking to.  (that article, btw, written by Caitlin Flanagan, whose thoughts on nanny issues are always good to stir up the Internet).

How much does this matter?  Isn’t part of the argument of this movie something about “the goal of entertaining and creating hope through entertainment can supersede other concerns,” or something?  I dunno.  Surely the people who made this movie looked into it more than your average reviewer and made their own set of ethical choices about how faithful they had to be to reality.  If the manipulation of reality for narrative makes us queasy why and at what point does it make us queasy?  How far are you allowed to go on these kinds of things?

I mean, a movie is a lie, that’s not really Walt Disney and it’s not really 1961.  How much are you allowed to lie, though?  I mean we all agree some accuracy is important, see Wikipedia:

To accurately convey Walt Disney’s Midwestern dialect, Tom Hanks listened to archival recordings of Disney in his car and practised the voice while reading newspapers.[37][38] Hanks also grew his own mustache for the role, which underwent heavy scrutiny—with the filmmakers going so far as to matching the same dimensions as Disney’s.[39][40]

Do we like hearing these things because it suggests the moviemakers are showing respect for the truth, and respect for us the audience by doing this work?  Does it matter only when the real-life person is as famous/sacred at Walt Disney?  Are critics like Amy Nicholson in LA Weekly mad the way we’re mad when we catch someone lying to us?  Because it suggests the liar doesn’t respect us and thinks they can get away with it?

* An Australian person once claimed to me that it’s a well-known thing among Australians that Australians are known to get emotional when they come to Los Angeles.  The person who claimed this to me said it was a combination of the flora, eucalypts and stuff, reminding them of home, plus Los Angeles is often the last stop on a long trip and they’re tired and on their way home.  An odd claim maybe but then it was spontaneously confirmed to me by a whole other Australian.  Saving Mr. Banks hints at this theme a little bit, I guess, but even that gets weirder when you learn the Australian scenes were shot in California.  

* Real-life P. L. Travers is pretty interesting.  Here’s some teasers from her Paris Review interview:


Does Mary Poppins’s teaching—if one can call it that—resemble that of Christ in his parables?


My Zen master, because I’ve studied Zen for a long time, told me that every one (and all the stories weren’t written then) of the Mary Poppins stories is in essence a Zen story. And someone else, who is a bit of a Don Juan, told me that every one of the stories is a moment of tremendous sexual passion, because it begins with such tension and then it is reconciled and resolved in a way that is gloriously sensual.

or here she is talking about her time with the Navajo:

I’d never been out West and I went to stay on the Navajo reservation at Administration House, which is at Window Rock beyond Gallup…

One day the head of Administration House asked me if I would give a talk to the Indians. And I said, “How could I talk to them, these ancient people? It is they who could tell me things.” He said, “Try.” So they came into what I suppose was a clubhouse, a big place with a stage, and I stood on the stage and the place was full of Indians. I told them about England, because she was at war then, and all that was happening. I said that for me England was the place “Where the Sun Rises” because, you see, England is east of where I was. I said, “Over large water.” And I told them about the children who were being evacuated from the cities and some of the experiences of the children. I put it as mythologically as I could, just very simple sayings.

At the end there was dead silence. I turned to the man who had introduced me and said, “I’m sorry. I failed, I haven’t got across.” And he said, “You wait. You don’t know them as well as I do.” And every Indian in that big hall came up and took me silently by the hand, one after another. That was their way of expressing feeling with me.

I never knew such depths of silence, internally and externally, as I experienced in the Navajo desert. One night I was taken at full moon away into the desert where they were having a meeting before they had their dancing. There were crowds of Indians there, about two thousand under the moon. And before the proceedings began there was no sound in the desert amongst those people except the occasional cry of a baby or the rattle of a horse’s harness or the crackling of fire under a pot—those natural sounds that really don’t take anything from the silence.

They waited it seemed to me hours before the first man got up to speak. Naturally, I didn’t understand what they were saying. But I listened to the speeches and I enjoyed the silences all night long. And when the night was far spent, they began to dance. Not in the usual dances of the corn dance; they had their ordinary clothes on and were dancing two-and-two, going around and around a fire, a man and a woman. And I was told that if you’re asked to dance by a man and you don’t want to dance, you give him a silver coin. So one Indian did come up, but I went with him. I couldn’t do the dance, even though it wasn’t a very intricate dance; it was more a little short step round and round, just these two people together. So we two strangers danced around the fire. It was very moving to me. And we came back to the House in the early morning.

* Oh!  What about the part in the movie where P. L. Travers’ dad says of her poetry “it’s not exactly Yeats, is it?”  Well real-life P.L. grew up to know Yeats.  Is that anything? I dunno, probably not.

* What if this is a story about a pretty good con artist/manipulator (Travers) going up against the best who ever lived (Disney), and when she realizes how meagre her gifts are compared to his she becomes spiteful and petulant (Salieri-in-Amadeus style)?

* They mention in the movie that Robert Sherman got shot.  Apparently he was in on the liberation of Dachau.  A Jewish guy liberates a death camp and comes home and writes the cheeriest songs anyone’s ever heard?  I mean, that’s a whole other interesting movie.

P. L. Travers as a young actress:


Question ONE:

* Is 

as wonderful as


Look, I don’t want to turn this into another Astor Place riots, but I think there’s a healthy American vs. UK rivalry to start here.

Question 2:

The biggest Dylan fan I know says: “every time Dylan does something, ten years later it’s revealed to be genius.”  Is the same true of the Coen Bros?

Even if I didn’t really like one of their movies, they are so good I assume that I’m wrong.  I liked this one though, even though it was so so sad.

Listen to Carey Mulligan, Justin Timberlake, and Oscar Isaac sing 500 Miles.   Best I can tell they all did their own singing.

Question 3:

Who wrote “500 Miles”?

This song is usually attributed to Hedy West, who put together  “fragments of a melody she had heard her uncle sing to her back in Georgia.”

Her father, Don West, was a southern poet and coal mine labor organizer in the 1930s; his bitter experiences included seeing a close friend machine-gunned on the street by company goons in the presence of a young daughter.

Question 4:

What is the meaning of this movie?

I’ll tell you one message I felt strongly:  “pursuing great art requires great sacrifice.  It’s tragic if the art falls short.  You don’t get the sacrifice back.  Maybe the sacrifice itself is still noble but it’s an awfully lonesome road.”

Also this could be seen as a movie about a man being punished by God for abandoning a cat.

This was  a movie where the hero literally does NOT save the cat.

Question 5:

The two best units of art that emerged from Jewish Minnesota have to be the Coen Brothers and Bob Dylan, right?  Both deeply fascinated with “the old, weird, America.”  Is there anything to that?

Question 6: 

What would Minnesotan F. Scott Fitzgerald make of this movie?

I saw it just around the corner from where F. Scott Fitzgerald died.

Question 7:

Will the movie revive interest in The Clancy Brothers?

Question 8:

Why is Justin Timberlake so good at playing lame characters?

Is it because he has moved in his life so far beyond the idea of coolness?

Consider this testimonial by Joe Jonas.  Timberlake, who at least in his choices appears very smart, was at an equivalent point of fame and self-awareness  TEN YEARS AGO.

Question 9:

How the fuck is some guy in a magazine or a newspaper supposed to review a movie like this??  Obviously everything you’d think of the Coen Brothers already thought of times 1000!!

That’s what I thought as I walked out.

Sometimes Anthony Lane cheeses me off but his review of this movie helped me think about it.

(Some photo sources.  Are photos of movie stars on the Internet just public property we can repost?  I dunno, but 85% of all HelyTimes profits goes directly to charity)

Vertigo Sucks

1) I like many old movies.  

Many of them* are “still” good, even though now-movies are faster louder and full of incredible innovations.

2) The cause of encouraging people to enjoy old movies is hurt when we pretend bad old movies are good. 

If you’re on the fence about old movies, and you hear about one that’s supposedly good, and then you watch it and it’s boring nonsense, you might conclude “old movies are boring and shitty.”

3) Vertigo sucks.  

It is boring to watch.  The plot is ridiculous and implausible, multiple times over.  This plot is explained in tedious, boring ways.

I absolutely concede that Vertigo might have been AMAZING when it came out in 1958, full of crazy innovations and sexiness.  This shot, say – still very cool:


As cool as the paintings on old rides at Disneyland.

4) People pretend Vertigo is good for some reason.  This is destructive.

It’s possible that these people just have different taste than me.

But I don’t think so.  That’s how much I hated Vertigo.  I believe it is either 1) old people who remember seeing Vertigo in 1958, and having their minds blown, which, fine I totally concede or 2) people who for some micro-cultural reason have bought into liking Vertigo as some kind of status indicator or something.  Possibly uncharitable, I know, but understand: I hated Vertigo.

I don’t even not like Hitchcock.  I would say Rope is 2x better than Vertigo.  Psycho is better than Vertigo.  So is North by Northwest which also doesn’t make a ton of sense.  Rear Window is way better than Vertigo.


1) I only just saw Vertigo a couple days ago, maybe I would’ve liked it more if I saw before I’d seen, say 12 Years A Slave, Gravity, and The Counselor.

3) I’m wrong all the time

But I think this is an important cause.

Vertigo was voted in first place in Sight & Sound‘s 2012 poll of the greatest films of all time, both in the crime genre and in general, displacing Orson Welles’ Citizen Kane from the position it had occupied since 1962.

Ok: lists are stupid, deliberately provocative, Sight & Sound is a British magazine so maybe they are biased, and also who cares, and maybe, as Sight & Sound editor Nick James says, it might just be that critics love j. o.’ing to the idea of disguised/impersonated movie stars (paraphrasing).

The problem is that Citizen Kane is good.  I think if you’d never seen Citizen Kane tomorrow and you watched it it would still be interesting.

By hyping Vertigo to youths, we encourage them to watch a boring piece of shit, and their conclusion will be “don’t trust the fuckers who say old movies are good.”

5) Don’t believe anyone who tells you Kim Novak is “sexy” in Vertigo.

The sexy one is tragic, confused Midge.

With regard to recent comments


This is a safe space.  The comments section is intended as a great big picnic of fun and musing, but it’s also available as a safe space for personal reflection and emotional unburdening when necessary/drunk.

Regrettably requests for drugs cannot be honored.  But God bless.

Steven Soderbergh


I look at Hurricane Katrina, and I think if four days before landfall you gave a movie studio autonomy and a 100th of the billions the government spent on that disaster, and told them, “Lock this place down and get everyone taken care of,” we wouldn’t be using that disaster as an example of whatnot to do. A big movie involves clothing, feeding, and moving thousands of people around the world on a tight schedule. Problems are solved creatively and efficiently within a budget, or your ass is out of work. So when I look at what’s going on in the government, the gridlock, I think, Wow, that’s a really inefficient way to run a railroad. The government can’t solve problems because the two parties are so wedded to their opposing ideas that they can’t move. The very idea that someone from Congress can’t take something from the other side because they’ll be punished by their own party? That’s stupid. If I were running for office, I would be poaching ideas from everywhere. That’s how art works. You steal from everything. I must remember to tweet that I’m in fact not running for office.

(I can’t agree that the entertainment biz is a model of efficiency)

On the few occasions where I’ve talked to film students, one of the things I stress, in addition to learning your craft, is how you behave as a person. For the most part, our lives are about telling stories. So I ask them, “What are the stories you want people to tell about you?” Because at a certain point, your ability to get a job could turn on the stories people tell about you. The reason [then–Universal Pictures chief] Casey Silver put me up for [1998’s] Out of Sight after I’d had five flops in a row was because he liked me personally. He also knew I was a responsible filmmaker, and if I got that job, the next time he’d see me was when we screened the movie. If I’m an asshole, then I don’t get that job. Character counts. That’s a long way of saying, “If you can be known as someone who can attract talent, that’s a big plus.”

I was watching one of those iconoclast shows on the Sundance Channel. Jamie Oliver said Paul Smith had told him something he hadn’t understood until very recently: “I’d rather be No. 2 forever than No. 1 for a while.” Just make stuff and don’t agonize over it. Stop worrying about being No. 1. I see a lot of people getting paralyzed by the response to their work, the imagined result. It’s like playing a Jedi mind trick on yourself, and Smith is right. That’s the way I’ve always approached films, the way I approach everything. Just make ’em.


Tavis Smiley, in the Daily Beast, talks about Django Unchained:

Tarantino even went on the record saying Roots was inauthentic. First of all, Tarantino is not a historian. When people see his film who don’t have any understanding of history, they take it as history, because Tarantino passes himself off as a historian by declaring Roots inauthentic, and then goes on to make the “authentic” story about slavery. It doesn’t tell the truth about what the black contribution to this country has been. Tarantino has the right to make whatever films he wants to make. What he’s not entitled to is his own set of facts and to lecture black people about the inauthenticity of an iconic, game-changing series like Roots.

I think* Tavis is referring to this quote, also from the Daily Beast.  Here’s what QT said, in its context:

“When you look at Roots, nothing about it rings true in the storytelling, and none of the performances ring true for me either,” says Tarantino. “I didn’t see it when it first came on, but when I did I couldn’t get over how oversimplified they made everything about that time. It didn’t move me because it claimed to be something it wasn’t.”

  1. Worth reading TS’s own description of what the black contribution to this country has been, which gave me something ELSE to think about.
  2. Boy it would be hard to watch an authentic movie about slavery.  Hard enough to watch Django which was a super cool, entertaining adventure story but which also has some scenes that are awful raw to look at.
  3. Ta-Nehisi Coates weighs in here with about why slave-revenge stories are rare in the historical record.  (but is this movie really a revenge story?  might it not just be a blown-out version of the dynamic TNC describes?  “the preservation and security of their particular black families.” TNC declines to see the movie.)
  4. QT has more thoughts on Roots here, from 5:07-7:35 or so:

And what about this?:

GROSS: Just one other related question. Did you ever – because I know you really enjoy, have always enjoyed really violent movies. Have you ever been exposed to a movie image – even like when you were a child or as an adult that you wished you hadn’t seen because it was so troubling and scary and you had nightmares about it and hunted you?

TARANTINO: Well, you make that that’s not supposed to happen, like that would be a bad thing.

Or this?:

TARANTINO: Yeah. Well, it was almost like a sitcom, actually the way we lived in the ’70s because she [QT is talking about his mom here] was in her 20s, she was hot, all right, she was a hot white girl. Her best friend was named Jackie. She was a hot black girl. And her other best friend was Lillian and she was a hot Mexican girl. And they lived in this like swinging singles apartment with me.


GROSS: What impact did that have on you?

TARANTINO: Yeah, well, it was just yeah, it was just, you know, it was the ’70s so it was, you know, I lived with these three hip ladies all going out on dates all the time and dating football players and basketball players and, you know, my mother…

GROSS: Professionals ones or…

TARANTINO: Yeah. Yeah. My mom dated Wilt Chamberlain. She’s one of the thousand.



Puzzled for a minute over who QT sounds like before realizing: Richard Kind.

*  pretty sure.  did due diligence googling, unless he’s referring to some unprinted comment or something on a TV or radio show.  I listened to all of QT on Howard Stern, Charlie Rose, and Terry Gross.


There’s been much talk about the exchange at 13:56 in this video.  But for me the compelling part is at 12:05-13:03.  What coolness.


Scenes from the life of Marie Antoinette

1) An angry mob tries to show her the head of her best friend.

She’s being held captive by revolutionaries.  Outside, she hears an angry mob yelling and shouting.  She asked what it was.  Nobody would tell her.  Antonia Fraser tells us

“…the municipal officers had had the decency to close the shutters and the commissioners kept them away from the windows…

One of these officers told the King “they are trying to show you the head of Madame de Lamballe.”

Mercifully, the Queen then fainted away”.

2) She and her family try to make a run for the border, in disguise, but they are recognized by the local postmaster.

Or possibly by a tavern-keeper who recognized the king’s face from a coin.

3) Her husband is taken from her and executed.

4) Her eight year old son is taken away from her.

He was given to be raised by a cobbler.  The revolutionaries tried to trick him into accusing his mother of sexually abusing him.

5) Then at last her hair is cut off, and she’s wheeled in a cart through the streets of Paris.  When they led her up to the scaffold, she steps on the executioner’s foot by accident.  So she apologizes.  “Pardon me, sir, I did not mean to do it.”

None of these scenes (I got from a quick read of wikipedia) were in this movie:

There were some other good scenes.

Massive insurance…

but not even one HelyTimes reader should miss this, from Time’s interview with Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi:

On the lessons of Planet of the Apes: I remember a movie. Which one? Planet of the Apes. The old version, not the new one. There is a new one. Which is different. Not so good. It [does] not [express] the reality as it was the first one. But at the end, I still remember, this is the conclusion: When the big monkey, he was head of the Supreme Court I think — in the movie! — and there was a big scientist working for him,  cleaning things, [who] has been chained there. And it was the planet of the apes after the destructive act of a big war and atomic bombs and whatever in the movie. And the scientist was asking him to do something … “Don’t forget you are a monkey,” [the man] tells [the ape]. “Don’t ask me about this dirty work.” What did the big ape, the monkey, say? He said, “You’re human. You did it [to] yourself.” That’s the conclusion. Can we do something better for ourselves

Fish Tea

Highly recommend the documentary Marley:

on netflix instant.   Well-told, dramatic, incredible story about shyness, power, religion, family, belonging, loneliness.

Maybe my favorite parts were the helicopter shots of Jamaica’s crazy topography:

As he was dying, Marley’s mistress Cindy Breakspeare suggested that he go back home and spend his last days drinking fish tea:

Fish tea is a spicy soup in Caribbean cuisine and Jamaican cuisine. It is similar to a fish bouillon and can take four hours to prepare. It includes ground yam, pumpkin, cassava, potatoes and “bottlers,” cooked until very soft. As much as 15 pounds of fish is added to make five gallons.[1] Carrots and cho–cho can also be added. It is flavored with coconut milk and seasoned with various ingredients that may include black pepper, salt, thyme, butter, scallion and season–all.

He didn’t take her advice.

(photo of the Cockpit Country from here)

Seven Psychopaths

Mickey Rourke dropped out of The Expendables 2 to star in the film. However, he later dropped out of Seven Psychopaths after having disagreements with [Martin] McDonagh, calling him a “jerk-off.”

The Organ Recital, Henry Lerolle

at The Met.

There is literally nothing interesting on LeRolle’s wikipedia page, so we turn to a tidbit sent recently from our Greenville office.  Our correspondent there found this on the wikipedia page for the movie “It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.”

“(Director Stanley) Kramer considered adding a fifth ‘mad’ to the title before deciding that it would be redundant but noted in interviews that he later regretted it.”