david brent vs. michael scott

it seems to me that michael scott is a much better boss than david brent. my concern, however, is the thought that this is a cultural thing, as opposed to a straight logic thing. it seems to me that scott is a much more sympathetic boss, perhaps due to his lack of overtly sexual innuendo and behavior. he seems much more innocent than brent.

now to a certain extent that helps the american office. it means that the show, and the office, can stay under the management of scott longer (because already they have been on for 13 more episodes than the uk show already) without the audience thinking he should be fired. i remember at about episode 2 of the second season i was saying to myself, and others, "why has david not been fired yet?"

i mean, david brent gains redemption during the christmas special, but michael scott gains his redemption one small step at a time. throughout the show, michael proves that he is not a douchebag by small steps--not ditching his company, making a great sale, or by kissing oscar full on the lips...i'm not sure that last one counts.

that being said, i think david brent being the worse boss makes him a better character. while michael scott is redeemable, david brent pushes, and in fact rips, the envelope with his edgy awfulness. while michael steps back to perserve legitmacy, and therefore staying power, david walks on through unknowingly, destroying the boundaries of what is good and right almost too easily.

as well as michael scott being a better boss, there is another aspect of the american office that lets it go on much longer than it's english counterpart. that is the depth of the supporting actors. while donna and ricky were a quick sideshow, and rachel made things awkward for dawn for a bit during the second season, none really had a life of their own...except perhaps keith. in the us version, you have oscar, toby, stanley, phyllis, and of course angela. each has their own idiosyncracies and ways of dealing with michael. i think it was important to broaden these characters to make the show viable for anything longer than 14 episodes.

still, i worry about the show going on too long, and ruining the legacy that to this point it has honored. please...know when to stop.

warlock by oakley hall

warlock is a novel based on tombstone. in a preface, oakley hall explains that while the characters and events are not based on actual occurrences, he can't say that they don't resemble actual happenings. he says that this is because they are the way history should have been if it was right. oakley hall was an idol of thomas pynchon, so it is interesting to see how clear and precise his writing is. it's like an illuminated manuscript, sans the colorful knights. this is one of my first westerns, but i'm not sure if i'll continue in the genre. it seems that no one will be able to compare to this great writing by hall.

dr. who

so i watched the first two episodes of the new season of dr. who. now when i was a little tyke, i used to watch it with my dad and jim. i loved the long scarf, the tardis, and of course, the daleks. but when i watched the new season it seemed too dr. who. the most exciting part of the show was when they played the theme song. man i love that theme song. the most disappointing part was the monsters. they were marginally better than the ones that i saw in the late 80's, but still not as good as i expected to see. this is the 21st century--i need good monsters. and for that matter, a good, edgy plot. unfortunately, it was the doctor, running around, hiding and saving people from the same plastic (literally) monsters.

it's like when hook used to be my favorite movie. then, i watched in college. it was awful. my advice is to stay away from anything you enjoyed as a child. don't ruin those precious memories.

further instructions

lost is a pretty rediculous show. i dig the crazy sci-fi stuff that happens, and i think the format, with character-specific flashbacks, is a great idea. the new season is good--the division of storylines agrees with me quite well.

but what is making me write now is the great vision that locke has in episode 3, "further instructions." without giving anything away, the setting is perfect, the parallels it sets up are right on, and it has a bit of a creep-out factor that any good hallucinogenic vision quest should have. A+, lost.

a buddhist parable

once upon a time, a woman had the idea to test a buddhist monk's vows of abstaining from killing, sex, and intoxicants. she invited a monk to her house under false pretenses, and locked the door behind him. she told him she would not give him the key unless he did one of three things: kill a goat tied up in the back yard, have sex with her, or drink a flask of wine.

while the killing and the sex affected others' lives, the drinking of the wine affected only the monk's own, so he decided he would drink the flask.

the next morning, while nursing a nasty hangover (a little interpretation there) the monk realized that while he was drunk he killed the goat and ate it, and afterwards made love to the woman.

this parable demonstrates why clouding your mind can be so detrimental. while it may seem like a small, insignificant act, the loss of control that can follow may prove to be more damaging.

freak show

david cross has been a hero of mine ever since i watched mr. show the first time. the way they linked the skits together was genius, and if you have ever seen the drugachussetts episode, you know what i mean.

his new project is called freak show. it is about a crack team of freaks who go missions given to them by the parking attendant at the white house. even though i'm a big fan of david cross, i'm not a huge fan of freak show. there are a few barbs pointed at our society, government, etc, but it doesn't push it over the hump for me. perhaps if i was in an altered state, i'd feel differently.

i am neither a fan of aqua teen hunger force, and they seem to have that audience in mind. it is the same type of animation, the same type of bizarre setups, and many of the same voices, as well.

it's just not david cross enough.

world trade center

wow. not what i was expecting. i need a nick cage who is going to save the day not...whoops...spoiler alert....

be trapped in a pile of rubble for the whole movie. i mean, oliver stone nailed the tone i think, and i teared up a few times, but on the whole i was expecting something much different. Perhaps my expectations lost it for me, as expectations often will.

or perhaps it was the shitty bootleg i was watching. first it was in german till we switched the audio. then the cameraman in the theatre kept rubbing the mike against his jacket or something. in the dark scenes in the rubble it was too dark, and there was no detail--it added a gritty feel to it, but watching nick cage's eye glints for a whole hour is a bit much. then it switched back into german for another fifteen minutes, no matter which language it was in, and finally it cut out the best part of the movie when the crazy vet finds the cops.

so it could be either expectations or bad bootlegging. i say a little from column a, a little from column b.

but i think that stone made an honorable tribute to such an awful event. i still don't know what to make of the vet...i guess it was stone's little piece of commentary in an otherwise tame movie. well shot, well acted, just maybe not what i was looking for.