The Beef Brigade

ﾠ

ﾠ

I noticed a little anomaly couple of days ago. Thinking back over the truth that Hollywood has more liberals than conservatives (as opposed to the lie that Hollywood is exclusively, or almost exclusively liberal) I thought about the high-profile, super-successful Conservative stars. The names that came to mind quickly: Clint Eastwood, Arnold Swarzenegger, Bruce Willis, Chuck Norris, Sylvester Stallone...

ﾠ

And then something hit me. Was it just an accident that every one of these guys is, very specifically, known for their macho roles? I mean...it might be pure accident, but isn't that kind of interesting? Furthermore, every one of them is known for specifically physical performances. Strange thoughts ran through my head when I was in my Yoga class yesterday. I was betting myself that a disproportionate number of practitioners would be considered "Liberal", compared to the general population. Especially if you compared them to the populations of the average, say, bodybuilding gym. Back to that sense of something going on between masculine and feminine ways of looking at the world. Of course, if I really wanted to make that comparison, I'd have to contrast, say, a body-building gym and a dance or aerobics class. Would that hold even more if it was, say, a powerlifting gym (almost pure objective performance) as opposed to an figure-skating school (almost pure aesthetics)? I really don't know, and this is all just B.S. speculation. But it is a little strange.

##

Speaking of Stallone, anyone who wants to see what hard work, great genes, and all the HgH money can buy will make you look at the age of 62, check this out:

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39866

Yow! Sure fascinating to watch his career enter its third act. Or is it the forth? Or the mid-act climax?

##

Interesting to see what movie stars, male and female, put themselves through for screen image these days. Note the following look for Robert Downey Jr., as Sherlock Holmes in Guy Ritchie's new film:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/sherlock-holmes-gets-a-ma_n_160548.html

ﾠ

Now, the re-imagining of Holmes as an action hero doesn't bother me a bit. Doyle made it clear that Holmes was a formidable physical specimen, an expert in boxing, sword, and "Baritsu" (a form of Jiu Jitsu being taught in London at the time) as well as being strong enough to unbend a fireplace power that had been bent by a huge, powerful man. The fact that Watson almost never chronicled a specifically physical case doesn't mean he didn't have them: hard to believe that a man who didn't know whether the earth circled the moon or vice-versa (because the knowledge was irrelevant to his profession) would spend the time and energy (and pain) necessary to become expert in martial arts unless these were, upon occasion, useful skills. Also, Holmes spent large amounts of time underground in the London underworld, it's docks and waterfront bars and opium dens. Shall we suggest that this would be folly, were he not a man of physical capacity?

ﾠ

So...creating an adventure that allows him to demonstrate these things seems perfectly reasonable to me. I like Downey's look here. He has that too-thin, wiry appearance. Clearly this was a very deliberate choice of appearance (note the difference between this and the fit but sensualistic Tony Stark body in Iron Man), and Downey is just an incredible actor. He and Gwenyth Paltrow MADE Iron Man for me...in truth, I liked it better than "Dark Knight."

##

I was driving last week, and caught a radio segment where talk show host Thom Hartman said that it had been documented that bad information harvested from tortured terror suspects had caused the death of American soldiers: either they had been sent into traps, or on wild-goose chases that resulted in fatalities. While I find this believable, I haven't seen documentation on the topic. Does anyone out there have any?

##

"Benjamin Button" crossed the 100 Million dollar boxoffice mark. Beyond a doubt, there is a mild but effective love scene between two black characters. While not meeting the real requirements of my sex-in-cinema questions (it wasn't the male star, and in fact I don't really remember the guy's name), there is clearly a positive trend happening here. I still feel optimistic that the line will be crossed by the end of June this year. We'll see.

##

And another thought on Button. For EFX hounds: there is no Brad Pitt for the first 52 minutes. It's all CGI stuff. For those who worry that CGI will replace actors: I think that's crap. In the history of Animation, I've never heard anyone applaud the "acting" of a human cartoon. People celebrate the "acting" of cartoon animals and teapots, but real human beings are another matter. CGI crowds? Sure. But that inevitable CGI character in a major film won't just be created in a computer: it will be a computer amalgam of movement artists, vocal artists, and actors all combined. What's the problem with that? That's still acting. People whose primary gift is talking to computers don't have much overlap with those who know how to reveal human emotion through voice, body language, and facial expression. We'll just have another venue for older actors, unbeautiful actors, and so forth. But the revelation of the human heart is tough, demanding stuff. Hmmm. Might "B" actors be in trouble? Those who are beautiful but not particularly gifted emoters? Would people react as much to a CGI Pam Anderson as the real thing? Interesting question. My guess: some will, but we'll react more to living, breathing humans we can fantasize about touching. What if we don't know who are the real ones and who are the CGI? Well, if the human factor is there...and it will be...studios will trumpet their "real, live actors" as part of their marketing. That's gonna feel weird, but just as fans complained about the CGI-heavy stuntwork in "Die Another Day" or loved the real-world tractor-trailer flip in "Dark Knight" might make a difference in the box office.

ﾠ

I can see teams of people: body artists, vocal artists, choreographers, actors, etc., working together to make a "Synth-Actor" who appears in multiple films. But I think that it will be far easier to find an actor than it will be to find a computer maven who can also act.

ﾠ

On the other hand, it might be easier to find a computer maven who can act than a extremely beautiful person who can act. Not sure. Maybe Synth-Actors really will have a part in the future. Gonna be interesting to watch, that's fer shur.

ﾠ

Of course, when computers start writing scripts, I doubt I'll be amused.

##

Starting to record the CDs which will be part of the 101 Program. We've been listening to the comments from the participants, and want to set it up so that you "pop in" the first two CDs and in 90 minutes of driving/listening time, get the overview of the entire system. Sometimes I lose track of what information is easy to absorb, and what is tougher than hell. Here's the kicker: the most important information/techniques for people will often be the stuff that their brain looks at and says: "Huh?" or "What B.S!"

I have to be careful here, but also remember that this is Mark I of a project almost forty years in the making. Sigh.

##

I've sworn myself to a higher level of functioning this year, and as a result my meditations are like popping up through the ceiling from a clean living room into a musty, dusty attic. GAWD there's a lot of cobwebs and darkness. I can barely see a basic triangle, just glimpse or sense the corners thereof. Frustrating, and a little frightening. But once upon a time I was told that the only thing necessary to do to raise my energy was think about my daughter. I'll broaden that to include my family as a whole, and what's happening now is all about creating a higher level of safety and security for my family. So...I think I'll be able to do this, but there is fear and doubt galore associated. "I" don't know if "I" can pull this off. But then, what's Faith for, eh?

ﾠ

The question of the day is: what is the best, fastest way you've found of motivating yourself?