The Illusion of Life

Steven Paul Leiva gives an opinion in an argument that will only grow more complex through future technological advances. It's how to define "animation" in a world where there are things like Motion Capture and other techniques that do not involve someone sitting at a drawing table and starting with a blank piece of paper…or, I suppose, sitting at a computer and starting with a blank screen.

For reasons of length I assume, Leiva's piece only scratches the proverbial surface of the debate. For starters, you have to discuss how much some Motion Capture projects have artists altering those images. Then you need to address Rotoscoping — the time-honored process where a live-action film is shot and then artists trace it and use it as the basis for animation. You'd probably have to differentiate the way someone like Max Fleischer used Rotoscoping on his early cartoons from the way W. Disney used it on his features…and later, the way Ralph Bakshi used it on his Lord of the Rings film. Especially in the last of these, there was "animation" that is less animation than some of what results via Motion Capture.

But maybe it's all animation in some way, and certainly there will be projects in the future which further confuse the line of demarcation. I don't have any strong feelings about this debate except that I think we're going to hear an awful lot about it. I also think that nothing will ever be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone except maybe a party who's more likely to win an Oscar because some entity has decided that Film A is a cartoon whereas Film B, which some people think is a cartoon, isn't.

Recommended Reading

William Saletan on the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian. You may not get it if you go to that link because ads rotate…but when I went there just now, the sidebar had a big insurance ad showing a women crying on a gravestone and the headline asked, "If you died today, who would take care of your family?" Interesting juxtaposition.

Drive-In Movies: Good Riddance!

olympicdrivein01

I'm sorry. I'm not the least bit nostalgic for drive-in movies, nor do I resent their near-extinction. Obviously, a part of their appeal was that a guy and a girl could go to one on a date, ignore the film on the screen and have a wee bit of privacy for purposes of necking…but not much. Apart from that, I never understood why anyone had any use for them except as a good place to park or hold a swap meet during daylight hours.

Ours was the Olympic Drive-In, which was located at the corner of Olympic and Bundy in West Los Angeles. The three times my parents took me there, the place was crawling with kids who were running around between parked cars and drivers were honking horns continuously and there always seemed to be some poor guy wandering around with a tray of sodas and popcorn, having forgotten where his car was located so he kept yelling, "Marge?" For some reason, it was always "Marge?" It all seemed about as conducive to romance as trying to make out in the middle of a Kmart during the Blue Light Special.

My folks took me to the Olympic to see the following movies: Gulliver's Travels (the Max Fleischer version), Onionhead (starring Andy Griffith), Alias Jesse James (Bob Hope) Visit to a Small Planet (Jerry Lewis), The Delicate Delinquent (Jerry again) and Once Upon a Horse (the film debut — and almost the demise — of Rowan and Martin). I remember the movies but not which was paired with which in double features. These spanned the years when I was six, seven and eight — 1958-1960.

I also remember the Olympic as a horrible place to watch a movie. You'd pull into a spot and take the speaker, on which you foolishly expected to hear the movie's soundtrack, from a little pole and hook it over your window…only the speakers rarely worked. If you found a good, vacant parking space it was probably vacant because its speaker didn't work…as my father would find out. He'd have to move the car again and again and sometimes even again…and then right in the middle of the movie, the speaker would conk out and he'd have to move us yet again. So there was yet another distraction. The cars next to you were always moving around. Even when you found a space with a dependable speaker, the odds were that one or both of the speakers next to you didn't work so other cars would be pulling in and out of those spaces throughout the evening.

So the sound was bad and occasionally non-existent. The image was also bad…projected on a screen miles away that was covered with bird dung and serious weather damage. The Olympic got prints that were on their last go-round and full of splices, and you could always count on each movie breaking once or twice. During Onionhead, it would just stop like clockwork every ten or so minutes and the screen would be blank for about three. I figured out later that they must have only had one working projector that night so every time they got to the end of a reel, the projectionist would have to take that one off and then mount the next reel on the projector.

Whenever there was no movie on the screen, everyone honked their horn and hooted until there was again. There was also a lot of honking when cars tried to leave and back out of their spots…

…and then there was the refreshment stand. Oh, Sweet God in Heaven…

It was located in front of the screen in a low building which also housed rest rooms which had not been cleaned since the marquee included the name of Lon Chaney…senior. There was also a little playground there with swings and teeter-totters. I have this indelible memory of my father taking me to the men's room right in the middle of one of the Jerry Lewis films and it was like a twenty-minute wait for the only working toilet. We were lined up outside and I was watching a grown-up woman who must have weighed 250 pounds, sitting on one side of the teeter-totter…and there were about six men pressing down on the other end, trying unsuccessfully to get her off the ground while she ate a meatball hero sandwich.

I laughed out loud. It was a lot funnier than the Jerry Lewis movie, not that that's usually a tough standard to beat.

Before we went back to the car, my father bought popcorn and sodas, which were the only thing in the refreshment stand that looked remotely edible. There were hot dogs there that looked radioactive…like they might actually get up and do the little dance that the animated hot dogs had done in the intermission cartoon. There was also a big tub of chili that, so help me, had something living in it.

We finally got the popcorn and drinks back to our car…which took a while because, of course, my father forgot where the car was. I think I suggested he try yelling "Marge?" even though my mother's name was Dorothy. Once we finally located the auto with her in it, I promptly spilled refreshments all over the back seat, which I later learned was pretty much expected when you took a kid to a drive-in movie. Or at least it should have been.

So I couldn't enjoy the movie and I couldn't eat. My mother had brought along my pajamas with the bizarre idea that if I got tired, they'd put me in them and I could doze off in the back seat. Like that was remotely possible. It was very awkward for her to change me into my jammies inside the car and between the sound of the movie and the car horns honking and people racing engines and the lost fathers wandering around the lot screaming "Marge?", I couldn't have gotten any shuteye if you'd administered a lethal injection. Add in the huge traffic snarl at the end and the long, long wait to get out of the lot and you can understand why I never had any use for drive-in movies.  How anyone ever did is as big a mystery to me as what was lurking in that chili.

Today's Video Link

At times, we can all identify with the dog in this video and sometimes even the duck…

me on the radio

Rashy the Sock Monkey has posted Part Two of my three-part appearance on Radio Rashy, the weekly podcast hosted by my good friends, Paul Dini and Misty Lee. If you missed it, you can still hear Part One. This latest installment runs around forty-seven minutes. Part Three next week.

Recommended Reading

Fred Kaplan on the state of democracy in the Middle East. I'm actually a little more concerned about the state of democracy in Middle America.

Soup's Back On!

mushroomsoup130

I just posted a lot of content so I won't feel guilty when I mostly abandon you all for the next few days. I have deadlines like you wouldn't believe so while I may still be posting here if the need arises, it won't be often for the next few days. Things should get a lot easier in my life after Tuesday and if I owe you an e-mail, I might not get to it 'til then. Thank you for your continuing patronage in this, our time of serious distraction.

Today's Video (Actually, Audio) Link

Stan Laurel lived the last years of his life in retirement, answering fan mail (he got a lot) and occasionally welcoming some fan who wanted to come visit him. As I explained in this article, I had an opportunity to go meet him and I foolishly put it off and put it off until it was too late. Which reminds me: I haven't kicked myself for over a week about that.

Laurel also chatted on the phone with many of his correspondents and followers. He was even listed in the Santa Monica telephone directory.

One person who developed a brief fan-type relationship with him was an actor named Don Marlowe who had a handful of minor credits in movies and TV shows in the fifties and (reportedly) a close friendship with Bela Lugosi…and some reports say he was even Lugosi's agent for a time. As you'll see, most of the information about Mr. Marlowe is a little dodgy. It is not in question though that he had a brief fan-type relationship with Laurel at least via telephone, though they do not seem to have been as close as Marlowe would later insist.

One day around 1964, Marlowe phoned Laurel for a chat and unbeknownst to Stan, the call was recorded. A few years after Stan passed, Marlowe began marketing a record he produced of part of the call, selling it in film magazines as "Stan Laurel's Final Interview" and suggesting it was issued with Laurel's consent. Neither claim was apparently true. Then at around the same time, Marlowe also published a semi-autobiography about growing up in the movie business called The Hollywood That Was. It was not a very good book and film scholars ripped it apart for inaccuracies.

The loudest charges, because they seemed to be a matter not of bad scholarship but of outright lying, had to do with Marlowe's claims to have been one of the youngsters in the Our Gang comedies, playing the role of Porky. Even the dates didn't check out on that one. If Mr. Marlowe had been born when he said he was born, he would have been around 13 years old at the time when Porky was about five in those films. But he got away with his masquerade for a while because little had been researched about those movies then. There was no book one could consult to find out that the character of Porky was played by a person named Eugene Lee, not Don Marlowe. Eventually though, there was.

I saw Mr. Marlowe in person once — at Larry Edmund's Book Store on Hollywood Boulevard. He seemed like a kind of frantic little man and a kind of desperate hustler. At that moment, he was trying to hustle more copies of his book and his Stan Laurel record to a store that couldn't even sell the ones they already had on their shelves. Film magazines were lambasting him and sometimes refusing to accept his advertising and the proprietors of Larry Edmund's were treating him with similar deference.

Then as now, I was a huge fan of Laurel and Hardy but I had declined to buy the record on general principles. I kinda wanted to hear it but I didn't want to put money in that man's pocket. That day, I was buying another book on my favorite comedians and when Marlowe saw me carrying it towards the checkout table, he said, "Hey, I see you like Laurel and Hardy. You have my record, of course…last interview my good friend Stan Laurel ever gave." I wish I could recall exactly what I said to him in reply but I'm sure it was not nice. Marlowe died in 1978.

Still, I always wanted to hear that record and thanks to YouTube, I finally have. The speed is a little off and Marlowe isn't much of an interviewer but here it is. It's a bit under seven minutes…

Dr. Jack

Like a lot of folks who get paid to create silly remarks, I wrote my share of Dr. Kevorkian jokes. I mean, a doctor who kills people? It was stealing the money to come up with lines about that…and Dr. Kevorkian made it even easier by occasionally saying something outrageous or dressing up in a funny costume.

And yet I've long believed that his essential cause — that people deserve the right to die with dignity and without prolonging pain and suffering — was correct. I'm not saying the Doctor always served that cause well or that he didn't break the law…but I think that law is wrong and you have to have a certain admiration for a man who puts his life on the line for something like that. I have seen no report, no article…nothing to suggest he had anything but selfless motives. You sure don't get rich being constantly on trial for murder.

We had some family friends whose later years were a perfect example of why it is barbaric and just plain cruel to prolong some lives beyond a certain point. They were two of the finest, most wonderful people you could ever want to know but then the husband's health deteriorated rapidly to the point of No Return. There was no chance he could ever again have anything resembling an actual life…and taking care of him killed his beloved spouse of 50+ years. Never mind that it also wiped out their savings and forced her to sell their condo. It destroyed her health, as well. If the kind of thing Jack Kevorkian advocated had been available, the husband would have demanded it, he could have died without so much pain…and his widow would have lived twenty more years of comfort instead of ten months of impending homelessness.

Yes, yes. I understand how some believe that life is sacred and that it should be preserved at all cost. I just don't understand how anyone can look at situations like that — and there are so many — and see any sort of compassion or humanity…or even much of a respect for life.

I had a friendly debate recently with a comedy writer friend over whether it's fair or even honest to base jokes on premises you know to be false. Al Gore never said "I invented the Internet" but it was sure a breeze to write humorous material that claimed he had. I composed some of that too, knowing full well that it was perpetuating a fib that his political opponents were spreading about him. I wonder to what extent all the easy giggles that could be wrung out of Dr. Kevorkian's exploits distorted a serious issue and made his campaigns seem frivolous or devious or just plain unserious. There is something to be said for the viewpoint that comedians and comedy writers aren't supposed to frame public opinion or report news. They're just here to get laughs.

And then there's the other side of that question. I don't have an answer for myself, let alone for anyone else. It's just that every time I've seen the name of Dr. Jack Kevorkian in the last ten or so years, I wonder if we wouldn't be better off if we'd taken that man more seriously.

Recommended Reading

David Frum laments the way Republican "attack ads" are now making attacks on other Republicans for having done horrendous things like back their party's nominee or talked with Barack Obama. Frum, who is often described as a "G.O.P. strategist" is an interesting guy to watch here. He wants to see Republicans win as much as anyone but he thinks his party is going about it in precisely the wrong way.

Good Morning, Internet!

And I see that John Edwards would have been better off if he'd paid more attention to Anthony Weiner's crotch than his own. Let that be a lesson to all of us.

Last Post Before Bedtime

For the last two days, I've paid more attention to Anthony Weiner's crotch than my own. There's something very wrong with this.

Good night, Internet! See you in the morning.

Today's Video Link

And here he is again, folks — Sidney Spritzer…

VIDEO MISSING

Recommended Reading

I keep thinking I've heard about as many bad things about Goldman Sachs as I could possibly hear. Then I read another Matt Taibbi post. As far as I can tell, no one is denying this stuff in any meaningful way.