LOSERS

 

 

 

The secrets of the universe might be
found in a drop of water.                                        
ME

 

Now my understanding of Platonic
Thought;  that there are ideal models in
the universe and then there are the real ‘things’.

If one came across the perfect tree
(and I have thousands of times), one would have found God.

The same concept would apply to bears
and frogs I suppose.

Which is one reason that I believe in a
multitude of gods in this universe—when I am in the mood.

Another Neo-Platonic ideal involves
knowledge.

If you discovered everything there was
to know about a drop of water, you would find many secrets concerning
this universe; in fact you might actually discover THE secret to the
universe.

It is the mundane that most often
attracts me.

A really great plumber in my mind would
be an artist; or at the least an artiste or artisan.

Without getting into the theoretical
wars between architects and engineers; a lot of the arguments
surrounding art seem silly to me.

I never was attracted to the Mona-Lisa.
The painting always looked as if a man were attempting to dress up
and pose as a woman. That was my first reaction at age six and is my
current reaction.

Picasso never did a thing for me—except for his earlier works with some exceptions

to the exceptions. I do not understand the so-called modern art except for when he

got into cave paintings.

How are we to ‘judge’ art, after all?

People will spend tens of millions of
Euros or Dollars for one painting. A painting I might or might not
admire and with the millions of wonderful paintings out there, why
concentrate on one anyway?

Is that how we judge a painting?

Or do we judge art from a populist
perspective?

Do we just add up the tickets sold in
movie theaters over a week-end and accept that Transformers or
Hangover is the greatest film of all time?

I cannot do that. I might take ratings
or money value into consideration but I have just become more
judgmental in my old age…or perhaps less so. I suppose it is how
you look at it?

I do not watch reality TV. I just
don’t.

I find no reality in reality TV.

But there are reality shows that get
fine ratings!

There was some comic who complained
that although he has a college degree, every time he finds himself in
a book store he is confused by the section-title ‘non-fiction’.

If fiction means ‘not true’ then
non-fiction must mean not not true! Ha

There is certainly less truth in
reality shows than in good dramas!

I had this opportunity to sign up with
Netflix for free for a month. There are old and new TV programs as
well as old and new films.

However they limit access just like
Hulu.

What they want you to do is pay double
for greater access.

The Brits had this series called ‘Life
on Mars
‘, so Americans put together their own version.

Irony: Netflix will not let me view the
British version, but I was able to view all episodes of the American
Life on Mars that ran from October of 2008 to April of
2009.

Jason O’Mara (someone I never heard of)
stars as Detective Sam Tyler and Harvey Keitel stars as his boss in a
NYC precinct.  Michael Imperioli from the Soprano’s shows up as
another detective.

Any time you can catch an entire series
with the likes of Keitel is wonderful.

Sam Tyler is a detective in NYC in 2008
and whilst he is in the midst of an investigation he gets hit by a
car and wakes up in 1976. When he awakens he has not idea what is
going on. He finds himself walking down the street and looks up to
gaze at the Twin Towers.

He concludes that he is in a coma as a
result of the car mishap and that everything around him is fictional.

But the laws of physics apply most of
the time and it is fun to be in 1976. The hair and the atrocious
leisure suits and the music and the big cars and the…well you get
the point.

There are also issues surrounding the
lack of civil rights, the lack of application of the Bill of Rights,
the lack of political correctness and rampant sexism become a real
source of comedy, believe it or not!

As an aside, Madmen just
bored me to death and I could give a damn about 1962 or at least the
manner in which 1962 is treated in Madmen. I think I
watched two episodes and gave up. You cannot drink that much alcohol
during the day and not pass out by noon unless you take a hell of a
lot of uppers—I think Louie CK talks about this.

There are other continuing themes
throughout the 17 episodes of this brilliant
allusion/allegory/paradigm/drama.

The Wizard of Oz is
constantly referenced…there is no place like home.

Nixon is either on the TV set (with
rabbit ears) located at the precinct house or in the discussion of
things.

Sam’s main rival (Imperioli) makes him
double down on a bet for the outcome of the ‘Norton fight’. haha

There are neat twists and turns as in
any time travelogue. I mean he meets himself as a small boy along
with his mums and dad. Pop is a felon who takes off for good when Sam
is six. Sam confronts him and arrests him as an adult. And Sam spends
a lot a time helping out his mums. So you can add Oedipus into the
mix.

At one point his love interest—a
female cop assigned to the detective squad in her blues—knows his
birthday and inquires how old he is going to be.

“Four” hahahahah

But Sam confides in this love interest
the truth of his time travel and she just keeps viewing him as a lost
puppy.

He attempts to change this new world he
finds himself in although he understands that it is useless to
‘splain’ the way things should be.

All his co-workers call him ‘Spaceman’.
Hahaha

Sam has a hippie lady rooming in his
apartment building where the floor shares a bathroom. He first meets
her as she approaches the bathroom naked just as he is coming out.
Pretty funny scene.

At one point she fixes him lasagna and
he discovers shortly thereafter that it is laced with THC.

Now this series was a loser. It began
with about 12 million viewers and ended its run with half that many.
ABC canceled it even before its final episode–which is lots of fun
by the way.

But I loved the entire series run when
it ran. And I was disappointed when they killed it. But I think of it
now like a 734 minute movie.

I stated before that I never heard of
O’Mara but it turns out that he is a Shakespearean taught actor from
Northern Ireland and you would never guess it from his role. I mean
his American accent is American!

There is this other Scottish actor by
the name of Gerard Butler (Law Abiding Citizen) who has
a terrible American accent—he talks like he has marbles in his
mouth and his mouth is always skewed and he always talks like he has
just taken a big bite out of a hot dog.

Turns out O’Mara is a very successful
actor and has appeared in many movies besides appearing on stage on
both sides of the Atlantic.

I just decided that I would report on
some losers.

Losers that I liked.

 

And it is fun to see these episodes
once again!

 

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “LOSERS

  1. Thanks Dick for this wonderful amusement.

    I was going back through it and thought about your reality TV comment. I am the same.

    It’s so strange to call it that and then look around for some grounding in reality and realize it’s nowhere to be found. On TV or in ‘real’ life most everything is some formulation of pretend. I see what went on in Washington across the weekend and come to realize we have a pretend democracy and a whole host of persons pretending to care about a country and it’s people.

    Our reality is the 45 rpm flip side of truth and is the saddest song I ever heard.

    This show will get cancelled one of these days and the critics, in their post mortem, will antagonize over the script and the director etc, but they’ll remain clueless as to why such a promising show went belly up. The thing is you just never know what the combating forces of blind idealism are going to serve up to the audience. But what’s really amazing is no two audience members hear the words of the actors the exact same way. The artists and the art of communication notwithstanding, we only hear what we want to hear. And I very strongly suspect our ‘hearing’ gets locked in at a very young age.

  2. ~flowerchild~

    But, how do we know perfection is perfect when we see it, Mr. Day? Mebbe there is something more perfecter under the next rock. At what point do we accept something as perfect? And, what if it turns out it isn’t, after all?

    Thinking about this makes my brain go all fizzy so I shall stop.

    Some months ago, my daughter had to write a paper for an Art History class covering this subject of what is a “good” painting and what is a “bad” painting and how one tells the difference. She struggled with it; called me up and we yakked for a while. I had a hard time getting across to her that there were no correct answers to these kind of questions. She was so focused on giving the professor proof of deep and profound thought on her part, it didn’t occur to her that no answer was the answer.

    Now she is all the time sending me links to websites that will showcase artists that don’t swim in the mainstream. “Look at this guy’s paintings!” she says to me. “Look how beautiful the colors are! Look at the emotion in the eyes of the model!” And many times I think they are the most god-awful paintings I’ve ever seen and I don’t doubt the artist really did starve to death in an garret somewhere because he couldn’t sell a picture to save himself, they were that bad.

    But, she sees a winner where I see a loser and really, who am I to say she’s not right? Over the years I’ve aligned myself with my fair share of losers. Been made fun of for it, too. But, so far, it hasn’t killed me and I say, “Embrace your losers! They need love, too.” It could turn out those ugly paintings weren’t ugly after all. Vincent Van Gogh could tell a story, I betcha. 😉

    PS: If reality TV was really real, they wouldn’t need script writers.

    1. I think this is why ‘mechanics’ are so important as tools to college instruction.

      You can at least think about things like horizon or centering or shading or combinations of color or the several different dyes and paints used in such and such a century or balance or….

      This is a way to tell the instructor that you are taking many different variables into account in your analysis.

      Then you might break the boundries by simply noting that a lack of centering in some scribble is a message from the artist. Or the lack of balance in a certain context demonstrates the lack of balance in the universe…

      I bet that if I spent five or six weeks just reading about the paintings of fruit–I mean why are there so many paintings of fruit?–I might at least learn something of the aim of a certain artist in a certain painting. I mean why choose three apples and two pears and…whatever. Why is the apple a golden green or the pear more orange than green or…

      That is why I am sure that there are subjective components to any inquiry but the mechanics of a study give us the language to communicate our subjective judgements.

      I know for example that certain biologists as well as physicists spend lifetimes just looking at one aspect of the universe like ‘surface’ or ‘surface tension’. And both the biologists and the physicist are seeking totally different answers to different questions but would enjoy reading papers from both disciplines.

      Oh well. I guess my point is that college or even private study should provide a language that can help us express our subjective findings.

      hahaha

      the end

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s