Wednesday, June 29, 2011

Remembering Composer Bernard Herrmann

The composer best known for his work with Alfred Hitchcock would have been 100 today. Jim Fusilli in the Wall Street Journal: "Bernard Herrmann may be best known for his memorable contributions to classic films, including his rousing overture to North by Northwest, the shower scene in Psycho, the romantic themes of Vertigo, the eerie electronic music in The Day the Earth Stood Still and the desolate blues of Taxi Driver

He might have preferred to be celebrated for his opera Wuthering Heights, symphonies and cantatas such as Moby Dick, and other concert works. According to the film composer John Williams, Herrmann's greatest ambition was to be recognized as a conductor. Nonetheless, Herrmann's lasting legacy remains his work in the entertainment industry… No other composer so consistently enriched the audience's understanding of a character's emotional and psychological state."

"His life had the dramatic arc of a great 20th-century maestro: expulsion from Juilliard, expulsion from Juilliard, works commissioned by the New York Philharmonic, major awards, an underappreciated symphony, friendship with Charles Ives, a feud with Leonard Bernstein." Brian Gittis conducts an experiment and reports on the results for the Paris Review: "I loaded two scores, Psycho and Vertigo, onto my iPod and tried them out as personal sound tracks for wandering around New York."

More from David Mermelstein (Washington Post) and Benjamin Ivry (Forward). There'll be a few events here and there to mark the centenary; see the Bernard Herrmann Society for details, appreciations and more. The Estate has more on Herrmann's life. You might, too, flip through CBS's "Bernard Herrmann at 100" photo gallery while listening to the Herrmann channel on Last.fm.
»

https://dcairns.wordpress.com/tag/janet-leigh/

http://dayofwoman.blogspot.com/2010/05/woman-of-week-marion-crane.html

http://buddypuddle.blogspot.com/2009/12/psycho-1960.html

Saturday, June 25, 2011

Carrie the Merengue Dancing Retriever

This isn't Sally, wow, what a dancer !!



From David Letterman Show...

Thursday, June 16, 2011

At Some Weddings, Man's Best Friend Is Man's Best Man



from: 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304474804576371830249059092.html?mod=ITP_personaljournal_0 



At a wedding ceremony in Los Angeles this coming Saturday, poodle mixes Lily and Luna will walk down the aisle sporting pearl-white leather leashes and hand-crafted floral collars.

A wrought-iron feeder and stainless-steel water bowls will await them at the reception, before the dogs cap off the night at a pet-friendly hotel.

"They are family," says 32-year-old bride-to-be Sarah Royer, who shares ownership of the pooches with her fiancé, Jonas Koester, also 32. "They have to be in the wedding."
 

Even couples who invest in lavish weddings are incorporating pets into their nuptials. "You just have to be careful in how you handle them," says wedding designer Preston Bailey of New York. Shown, a client's dog at a 2010 wedding in Carmel, Calif.

    More photos and interactive graphics

Increasingly, man's best friend is sometimes also man's best man—if not a ring bearer, flower girl or simply a member of the wedding party.

To meet this growing demand, wedding planners, niche retailers and other businesses are offering new services and products geared toward helping pets fulfill their special roles.

Mostly dogs but also cats, pot belly pigs and birds are getting outfitted with ornate wedding gear, including miniature tuxedos, veils and top hats. Trainers are prepping them for top performance and sitters are standing by for when the job is done.

TheWeddingOutlet.com saw a 28% increase in sales of wedding accessories for pets last year over 2009. Founder Deborah Weckesser says the Stoughton, Mass., Web retailer has so far this year sold more items in that category than in all of 2010.

Husband-and-wife team Dedi and Gary Wood of Plano, Texas, have been hired by six clients to oversee dogs in wedding ceremonies since launching Shadow & Marty's Pet Care Services in 2008. Another couple, Sheryl Bass and Neil Cline of Palatine, Ill., sell for $130 a petal-dispensing wooden cart that's hitched to a pooch to walk down the aisle. The pair invented the device so their Affenpinscher mix could be in their own wedding in 2006.

"When I found the (pet) petal-pull cart, that turned out to be perfect," says Sarah Dostal, a 26-year-old health-care worker in Ventura, Calif., who is getting married in July and will have her and her fiancé's two Shih Tzu take part in the ceremony.

Angel, a seven-pound, two-year-old, will serve as the flower girl, dispensing lavender rose petals. Hercules, an older Maltese-Shih Tzu mix, will act as ring bearer, carrying a $10 pillow she purchased at a crafts store on his back and fastened by a black ribbon with Velcro.

"It will be like having the spirit of my mom there," says Ms. Dostal of Hercules, whom she and fiancé, analyst James Darling, adopted from her mother after she died in 2009.

Once a shocking request, wedding planner Preston Bailey says incorporating pets into ceremonies has become an accepted practice. He offers tips on how to have a stress-free and seamless ceremony with your furry friend. WSJ's Christina Tsuei reports.

Some pet owners bringing their furry kin all the way to the altar are following the lead of celebrities such as singer Carrie Underwood and actress Tori Spelling, who included pets in their weddings. Others simply aim to personalize their nuptials.

"It brings in the personality of the bride and groom," similar to another growing trend of couples making donations to their favorite charities in lieu of party favors, says Anna Pohl, owner of Day Planners LLC, an event-planning business in Sarasota, Fla.

Five years ago Ms. Pohl says she hadn't planned any weddings with pets in them, but now she does about two out of 30 a year.

Even couples who invest in lavish weddings are incorporating pets into their nuptials. "You just have to be careful in how you handle them," says wedding designer Preston Bailey of New York, who charges rates for weddings with or without pets starting at $200,000. In the past 12 months, he designed three weddings with dogs in them for the first time, he says.

Accidents can happen even at well-planned ceremonies. Two summers agoNora Sheils watched in horror when nature called for a client's West Highland terrier moments before the bride was to come down the aisle at her parents' home in Portland, Ore. "There was a big gasp," says Ms. Shields, owner of Bridal Bliss LLC, who plans eight to 10 weddings with pets a year out of an average of 60.

Brides and grooms also run the risk of offending guests, and churches, synagogues and other venues often have a no-pets policy. Pets could also potentially upstage the bride on what is supposed to be her big day.

Making sure everything goes smoothly can be costly. Los Angeles animal trainer Colleen Paige, who readied pets to participate in 15 weddings last year, charges about $2,500 per event and more if multiple pets and travel are involved, or if an animal is especially badly behaved.

Though she mostly works with dogs, she has also prepped a pot belly pig, miniature horse and a goat for weddings, often setting up mock events for practice sessions. "It was a tug of war to get the pig down the aisle," she says. "It kept stopping to eat the flowers."

Sarah.Needleman@dowjones.com

Sunday, June 5, 2011

Dogs Enjoying A Nice Dinner



Thanks to Rabea for this, so funny !

Magnificent Dancing Stallion



Thanks to Rabea for this !

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Clueless and Confused - Mature Haiku

There's a new illness sweeping the nation called Age Activated Attention Deficit Disorder (AAADD).

This is how it manifests:

I decide to water my garden.
As I turn on the hose in the driveway, I look over at my car and decide it needs washing.

As I start toward the garage, I notice mail on the porch table that I brought up from the mail box earlier.

I decide to go through the mail before I wash the car.

I lay my car keys on the table, put the junk mail in the garbage can under the table, and notice that the can is full.

So, I decide to put the bills back on the table and take out the garbage first.

But then I think, since I'm going to be near the mailbox when I take out the garbage anyway, I may as well pay the bills first.

I take my check book off the table, and see that there is only one check left. My extra checks are in my desk in the study,so I go inside the house to my desk where I find the can of Pepsi I'd been drinking.

I'm going to look for my checks, but first I need to push the Pepsi aside so that I don't accidentally knock it over.

The Pepsi is getting warm, and I decide to put it in the refrigerator to keep it cold.

As I head toward the kitchen with the Pepsi, a vase of flowers on the counter catches my eye--they need water.

I put the Pepsi on the counter and discover my reading glasses that I've been searching for all morning. I decide I better put them back on my desk, but first I'm going to water the flowers.

I set the glasses back down on the counter, fill a container with water and suddenly spot the TV remote.  Someone left it on the kitchen table.

I realize that tonight when we go to watch TV, I'll be looking for the remote, but I won't remember that it's on the kitchen table, so I decide to put it back in the den where it belongs,
but first I'll water the flowers.

I pour some water in the flowers, but quite a bit of it spills on the floor.

So, I set the remote back on the table, get some towels and wipe up the spill.

Then, I head down the hall trying to remember what I was planning to do.

At the end of the day:

- The car isn't washed,
- The bills aren't paid,
- There is a warm can of Pepsi sitting on the counter,
- The flowers don't have enough water,
- There is still only 1 check in my check book,
- I can't find the remote,
- I can't find my glasses,
- and I don't remember what I did with the car keys.

Then, when I try to figure out why nothing got done today.  I'm really baffled because I know I was busy all damn day and I'm really tired.

I realize this is a serious problem and I'll try to get some help for it, but first I'll check my e-mail.

Do me a favor. Forward this message to everyone you know, because I don't remember who the hell I've sent it to.

Don't laugh -- if this isn't you yet, your day is coming!!

thanks to Linda for this gem !

Monday, May 23, 2011

About the Cover of Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band



The old Beatles are at left side, standing graveside, mourning their death.  Legend is this signified when the Beatles realized they could no longer tour and play live dates.  The crowds were too large, the noise was too great even for them to hear themselves playing, and the crazies and stalkers were rearing up.  

So from this point forward, the new Beatles - shown front and center in their Sgt. Peppers regalia - became a studio band, safely nestled away in the Abbey Road studios.

Another reason for their departure from the stage.  By 1967, the Beatles were creating music that was so electronically complex for the time it could not be reproduced live using the technology of the day.  

This was the advent of post-production effects.  For example, the rising orchestra-glissando and final chord for "Day In The Life" was produced by all 4 Beatles and George Martin banging on 3 pianos simultaneously. As the sound diminished, the recording engineer boosted to faders. The resulting note lasts 42 seconds, and the studio air conditioners can be heard toward the end as the faders were pushed to the limit to record it.
 
The rising orchestra-glissando and the thundering sound are reminiscent of "Entry of the Gods into Valhalla" from Richard Wagner's opera "Das Rheingold," where after the rising glissando, Thor beats with his hammer. George Martin said in his 1979 book All You Need is Ears that the glissando was Lennon's idea. After Lennon's death, Martin seems to have changed his mind. In his 1995 book Summer of Love: The Making of Sgt. Pepper, he states that the rising orchestra-glissando was McCartney's idea. (thanks to Johan Cavalli, who is a music historian in Stockholm).
 

This album cover was created by Jann Haworth and Peter Blake. They won the Grammy Award for Best Album Cover, Graphic Arts in 1968 for their work on this cover.


The celebrities and items featured on the front cover are (by row, left to right):


Top row:


Sri Yukteswar Giri (Hindu guru)
Aleister Crowley (occultist)
Mae West (actress)
Lenny Bruce (comedian)
Karlheinz Stockhausen (composer)
W. C. Fields (comedian/actor)
Carl Gustav Jung (psychiatrist)
Edgar Allan Poe (writer)
Fred Astaire (actor/dancer)
Richard Merkin (artist)
The Vargas Girl (by artist Alberto Vargas)
Huntz Hall (actor)
Simon Rodia (designer and builder of the Watts Towers)
Bob Dylan (singer/songwriter)


Second row:


Aubrey Beardsley (illustrator)
Sir Robert Peel (19th century British Prime Minister)
Aldous Huxley (writer)
Dylan Thomas (poet)
Terry Southern (writer)
Dion (singer)
Tony Curtis (actor)
Wallace Berman (artist)
Tommy Handley (comedian)
Marilyn Monroe (actress)
William S. Burroughs (writer)
Sri Mahavatar Babaji (Hindu guru)
Stan Laurel (actor/comedian)
Richard Lindner (artist)
Oliver Hardy (actor/comedian)
Karl Marx (political philosopher)
H. G. Wells (writer)
Sri Paramahansa Yogananda (Hindu guru)
Sigmund Freud (psychiatrist) - barely visible below Bob Dylan
Anonymous (hairdresser's wax dummy)


Third row:


Stuart Sutcliffe (artist/former Beatle)
Anonymous (hairdresser's wax dummy)
Max Miller (comedian)
A "Petty Girl" (by artist George Petty)
Marlon Brando (actor)
Tom Mix (actor)
Oscar Wilde (writer)
Tyrone Power (actor)
Larry Bell (artist)
Dr. David Livingstone (missionary/explorer)
Johnny Weissmuller (Olympic swimmer/Tarzan actor)
Stephen Crane (writer) - barely visible between Issy Bonn's head and raised arm
Issy Bonn (comedian)
George Bernard Shaw (playwright)
H. C. Westermann (sculptor)
Albert Stubbins (football player)
Sri Lahiri Mahasaya (guru)
Lewis Carroll (writer)
T. E. Lawrence ("Lawrence of Arabia")


Front row:


Wax model of Sonny Liston (boxer)
A "Petty Girl" (by George Petty)
Wax model of George Harrison
Wax model of John Lennon
Shirley Temple (child actress) - barely visible, first of three appearances on the cover
Wax model of Ringo Starr
Wax model of Paul McCartney
Albert Einstein (physicist) - largely obscured
John Lennon holding a Wagner Tuba
Ringo Starr holding a trumpet
Paul McCartney holding a Cor Anglais
George Harrison holding a flute
Bobby Breen (singer)
Marlene Dietrich (actress/singer)
An American legionnaire[1]
Diana Dors (actress)
Shirley Temple (child actress) - second appearance on the cover


Other objects within the group include:


Cloth grandmother-figure by Jann Haworth
Cloth doll by Haworth of Shirley Temple wearing a sweater that reads "Welcome The Rolling Stones"
A ceramic Mexican craft known as a Tree of Life from Metepec
A 9-inch Sony television set[2] - the receipt is owned by a curator of a museum dedicated to The Beatles in Japan.
A stone figure of a girl
Another stone figure
A statue brought over from John Lennon's house
A trophy
A doll of the Hindu goddess Lakshmi
A drum skin, designed by fairground artist Joe Ephgrave
A hookah (water pipe)
A velvet snake
A Fukusuke, Japanese china figure
A stone figure of Snow White
A garden gnome
A euphonium/baritone horn


People who were originally intended for the front cover but were ultimately excluded:


Leo Gorcey - was modelled and originally included to the left of Huntz Hall, but was subsequently removed when a fee of $400 was requested for the use of the actor's likeness.[3][4]
Mohandas Gandhi - was modelled and originally included to the right of Lewis Carroll, but was subsequently removed.[3][4] According to McCartney, "Gandhi also had to go because the head of EMI, Sir Joe Lockwood, said that in India they wouldn't allow the record to be printed".[1]
Jesus Christ - was requested by Lennon,[1] but not modelled because the LP would be released only a few months after Lennon's Jesus statement.[5]
Adolf Hitler - was modelled and was visible in early photographs of the montage, positioned to the right of Larry Bell, but was eventually obscured by Johnny Weissmuller in the final image.[5]

from:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_images_on_the_cover_of_Sgt._Pepper%27s_Lonely_Hearts_Club_Band

http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=129

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Front Row Seat at Cape Canaveral

Hanger to Liftoff in just 4 minutes.  
Note: most of the video is muted, but enjoy the ride.

Thursday, May 19, 2011

Tuesday, May 17, 2011





from: http://hubpages.com/hub/Lost-in-Space-My-Ten-Best-Episodes


Lost in Space, the popular television series which aired between 1965 and 1968, was intended as an outer-space adaption of Swiss Family Robinson. Set in the “distant” future of 1997, Irwin Allen’s show was unfairly viewed as an infantile version of Star Trek. Allen never sought to match the philosophical tone of Gene Roddenberry’s series, however, and both producers considered the comparison unfair. Allen was a storyteller, and the tales sprung from his studio were frequently imaginative and quite good.

Lost in Space starred Guy Williams as John Robinson; June Lockhart was featured as his wife, Maureen; their three children were Judy (Marta Kristen), Penny (Angela Cartwright), and Will (Billy Mumy). They were accompanied on their mission by Major Don West, portrayed by Mark Goddard.

After the pilot was filmed, it was decided the show needed a regular antagonist and Jonathan Harris was cast as Dr. Zachary Smith. Smith was originally written as a villain, but Harris slowly molded him into a lovable troublemaker.

Another addition to the cast was an “environmental control” robot. This machine started out as mere equipment but morphed into a member of the family, replete with a personality capable of love and pathos. These two late additions to the cast teamed with Billy Mumy and became the de facto focus of the program, much to the chagrin of Guy Williams and the other actors. This shift in focus recast the series into a fantasy/farce, but one still capable of producing many fine moments.

My 10 "Best" Lost in Space Episodes

The Reluctant Stowaway (Episode 1): This episode describes earth’s dangerous overcrowding and introduces us to the first family to reach out into space in search of habitable worlds. It tours the ship that will transport them to another world while the family sleeps in suspended animation during their five year journey. Dr. Smith attempts to sabotage the mission by reprogramming their robot to destroy the Jupiter II eight hours after launch, but is trapped on board at lift-off. His weight throws the ship off course and into the path of a meteor shower. He awakens the family in time to save the ship from both the meteors and the robot, but the ship is now hopelessly lost in space. A lot happens for a first episode, and this show was as good as nearly anything the original Star Trek offered. The Jupiter II and the Robot had a sophisticated look and the special effects were good. The ghostly howl of the ship in flight, coupled with the family frozen in their cryogenic tubes, provided a particularly haunting image.

The Keeper (Parts I and II): The Robinson’s face a powerful humanoid called the Keeper, who collects two specimens of each type of creature in the galaxy. He views humans as a primitive species and hopes through trickery to add Will and Penny to his collection. Dr. Smith inadvertently releases the Keeper’s entire collection, and the Keeper demands the children in return for recapturing the dangerous creatures with his cosmic-powered staff. The Robinson family’s compassion and spirit eventually convinces the Keeper that humans would never adjust to captivity, and he departs. This episode makes use of virtually every monster in the Lost in Space catalog of aliens, and it is a chilling sight watching this collection of creatures leave the Keeper’s ship. This is the only two-part episode throughout the run of the series.

Visit to a Hostile Planet: The Jupiter II exceeds the speed of light and propels the Robinsons back to Earth, but to their dismay they have traveled back in time to 1947. The locals consider them aliens and form a posse to capture them. Dr. Smith, delighted to be back on Earth in any time, dons a disguise and aids in imprisoning the Robinson family. The Robinsons only want to leave without incident, and Will finally convinces Smith to let everyone go. Fearing the loneliness he would endure stranded in Earth’s past, Dr. Smith reluctantly abandons his plan to stay and rejoins the family. The mixture of futuristic and mundane images is captivating, with the Jupiter II sitting in a parking lot and the Robinsons wandering about a saw mill in their flight suits inspecting old cars and trying to use a telephone.

Follow the Leader: John Robinson’s body is possessed by a long-dead alien named Kanto. As Robinson, Kanto reveals plans to repair the Jupiter II and leave the planet. He is oblivious to the strain he places them under as he mercilessly pushes for completion of the project. The Robot concludes that Robinson is possessed but the family finds this difficult to accept. Kanto eventually reveals his purpose first to Dr. Smith and then Will, just before intending to kill the boy. Will manages to reach out to his father and John Robinson frees himself from Kanto’s influence. Guy Williams does a masterful job of portraying an “evil” Professor Robinson, and one feels a true sense of menace as the personality of John/Kanto dominates the rest of the family.

Condemned of Space:  The Robinsons repair the Jupiter II and return to space, lifting off just before a comet destroys the planet they inhabited. After accidentally losing the Robot in space and dodging a supernova, they rendezvous with an alien space station in hopes of finding equipment to salvage and use in the Jupiter II. As they explore the station they discover it is a prison ship, filled with convicts frozen in suspended animation. Dr. Smith frees one of the prisoners who, upon learning the station’s clock monitoring their time served has malfunctioned, attempts to liberate the other captives and stage a revolt. John Robinson repairs the clock, and the prisoners are freed to pursue new lives as rehabilitated citizens. This episode includes the second appearance of “Robby the Robot” from the movie “Forbidden Planet”.

Flight into the Future: The Jupiter II approaches a bright green world while Will and Dr. Smith check the systems in their space pod. Smith accidentally launches the pod and Will is forced to land on the mysterious planet. The Robinsons swiftly follow in the Jupiter II. After their landing, Will and Smith succumb to fatigue and stop for a nap. When they awaken they find themselves 270 years in the future. There they discover the remains of the Jupiter II, a statue of the Robot, and their own descendents, including a look-alike of Judy. The three learn they have been subjected to illusions created by a mysterious computer designed to frighten away intruders. The Robot blasts the computer with a bolt of electricity, and the danger is ended. The vision of the rusted, abandoned Jupiter II is an interesting sight, and the costume provided Judy’s “descendent” showcased Marta Kristen’s considerable beauty.

Space Creature: The Jupiter II is trapped in the gravitational field of a mysterious planet, its atmosphere a strange mixture of methane and an evil, living organism that feeds on fear. A mist forms over the ship’s viewport and the Robinsons are frozen into immobility. While suspended, a giant claw moves across the viewport, the airlock is opened, and some of the mist enters the ship. As the family goes about their business, they begin to disappear. Maureen first, then Judy, and next Penny all vanish into thin air. At first Dr. Smith is relieved to believe only the women were vanishing, but Major West also disappears and finally all are gone but Will. Dr. Smith inexplicably returns to the ship, but is possessed by the malevolent force attacking the family and menaces Will. Will learns the creature is his own inner, evil instincts and realizes it cannot hurt him. He forces it to flee Dr. Smith’s body and finally tricks the creature into venturing too close to the ship’s power core, where it is destroyed. This episode had the mood and feel of Agatha Christie’s popular novel, “And Then There Were None”, with the inevitable disappearance of the family.

The Anti-Matter Man: The John Robinson and Major West of an alternate universe seek a means to escape into the Robinson’s world. The evil John does exactly that, physically forcing our John Robinson to replace him in the anti-matter realm. Convincing the family he is one of them, he pushes to make repairs on the Jupiter II and blast off. The Robot determines what has happened and joins Will in trying to rescue his father. The alternate John forces Will to aid him, but the real Robinson escapes and catches up with them. A battle ensues, and the evil John falls into a realm between universes. This episode was similar in tone to “Follow the Leader”, with Guy Williams again portraying an evil John Robinson trying to repair the ship and leave before the truth about him is discovered. An “anti-matter Robot” was an intriguing sight to behold.

Collision of Planets: A group of alien “Hell’s Angels” are assigned the task of blowing up the planet Chromo because of its unstable orbit. Unfortunately, the Robinsons land there to make repairs on the Jupiter II. John Robinson and Major West approach the hippie demolition team to explain their predicament, but they are unfazed. If the family is on the planet when it explodes, that’s just too bad. Meanwhile Will, the Robot and Dr. Smith find a case filled with demolition materials and open it. A strange gas seeps out and initially appears to kill Dr. Smith, but instead turns his hair green and gives him superhuman strength. With his newfound power Smith confronts the hippies, but they discover the source of Smith’s strength is his hair and cut it off. John Robinson finds the trio and blasts the hippie’s bikes with his laser pistol. Since the bikers are now trapped also, the Robinsons have time to make repairs and depart. Dr. Smith is an amusing mixture of Samson and the Hulk in this episode and the bikers are entertaining throughout.

Revolt of the Androids: Dr. Smith is searching for rubies when he’s attacked by a furry monster. As he explains his story to Will and the Robot, an immobilized super-android named IDAK (Instant Destroyer and Killer) materializes near them. Will repairs its controls and it attacks, but is easily evaded as the android stumbles over a rock. IDAK explains its purpose is to destroy another android but its powers are malfunctioning. Meanwhile, Judy and Penny find the android Verda (first featured in the episode “The Android Machine”), who is actually IDAK’s target. He confronts Verda but the others convince IDAK she is human. A second, more powerful IDAK is sent to complete the mission, but the first IDAK joins the Robinsons in defending Verda. IDAK was made to resemble Superman with red and blue tights and an emblem on his chest. The Robot even references Superman as he jokingly states that IDAK (tripping over a rock at the time) won’t leap over any tall buildings in a single bound. This is the only episode from season two to make my favorites list.

Lost in Space didn’t gain a cult following as Star Trek did, but garnered acceptable ratings over its three year run and was actually renewed for a fourth season. It was a fun, enjoyable program in the ‘60s that never got the respect it deserved.

Saturday, May 7, 2011

New Talking Dogs Clip



Jersey Floor Video by Jimmy Fallon

This week, Tina Fey and Amy Poehler visit the Jersey Floor gang !

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Distraction Can Be A Good Thing !

from:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144192132144506.html?KEYWORDS=Lehrer


We live in a time that worships attention. When we need to work, we force ourselves to focus, to stare straight ahead at the computer screen. There's a Starbucks on seemingly every corner—caffeine makes it easier to concentrate—and when coffee isn't enough, we chug Red Bull.

In fact, the ability to pay attention is considered such an essential life skill that the lack of it has become a widespread medical problem. Nearly 10% of American children are now diagnosed with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

In recent years, however, scientists have begun to outline the surprising benefits of not paying attention. Sometimes, too much focus can backfire; all that caffeine gets in the way. 

For instance, researchers have found a surprising link between daydreaming and creativity—people who daydream more are also better at generating new ideas. Other studies have found that employees are more productive when they're allowed to engage in "Internet leisure browsing" and that people unable to concentrate due to severe brain damage actually score above average on various problem-solving tasks.

A new study led by researchers at the University of Memphis and the University of Michigan extends this theme. The scientists measured the success of 60 undergraduates in various fields, from the visual arts to science. They asked the students if they'd ever won a prize at a juried art show or been honored at a science fair. In every domain, students who had been diagnosed with attention-deficit disorder achieved more: Their inability to focus turned out to be a creative advantage.

And this lesson doesn't just apply to people with a full-fledged disorder. A few years ago, scientists at the University of Toronto and Harvard gave a short mental test to 86 Harvard undergraduates. The test was designed to measure their ability to ignore irrelevant stimuli, such as the air-conditioner humming in the background or the conversation taking place nearby. This skill is typically seen as an essential component of productivity, since it keeps people from getting distracted by extraneous information.

Here's where the data get interesting: Those undergrads who had a tougher time ignoring unrelated stuff were also seven times more likely to be rated as "eminent creative achievers" based on their previous accomplishments. (The association was particularly strong among distractible students with high IQs.)

According to the scientists, the inability to focus helps ensure a richer mixture of thoughts in consciousness. Because these people struggled to filter the world, they ended up letting everything in. They couldn't help but be open-minded.

Such lapses in attention turn out to be a crucial creative skill. When we're faced with a difficult problem, the most obvious solution—that first idea we focus on—is probably wrong. 

At such moments, it often helps to consider far-fetched possibilities, to approach the task from an unconventional perspective. And this is why distraction is helpful: People unable to focus are more likely to consider information that might seem irrelevant but will later inspire the breakthrough. When we don't know where to look, we need to look everywhere.

This doesn't mean, of course, that attention isn't an important mental skill, or that attention-deficit disorders aren't a serious problem. There's clearly nothing advantageous about struggling in the classroom, or not being able to follow instructions. (It's also worth pointing out that these studies all involve college students, which doesn't tell us anything about those kids with ADHD who fail to graduate from high school. Distraction might be a cognitive luxury that not everyone can afford.)

Nevertheless, this new research demonstrates that, for a certain segment of the population, distractibility can actually be a net positive. Although we think that more attention can solve everything—that the best strategy is always a strict focus fueled by triple espressos—that's not the case. Sometimes, the most productive thing we can do is surf the Web and eavesdrop on that conversation next door.

Information Overload

from:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704900004576152384123140652.html?KEYWORDS=Bialik


The latest information about information overload is a lot to handle.  Wielding numbers that stretched to 20 or more digits, researchers recently reported on the world's massive ability to store, communicate and compute information.


All three have grown at annual rates of at least 23% since 1986, according to a study published this month in Science.

Translated to a human scale, the massive numbers mean that the average person in 2007 was transmitting the informational equivalent of six newspapers per day, and receiving, in turn, 174 newspapers of data.

For data engineers, this might seem like cause for celebrating humanity's expanding universe of information. For the rest of us, it is another reminder that information is piling up at overwhelming rates.

But the digital avalanche isn't as massive as those numbers suggest. Much of the growth reflects the surge in high-resolution video and photos. In addition, while there is much more information available, each piece is being consumed, on average, by far fewer people than in the past.

Also, heavy Internet users—think downloaders of music and movies, or digital-photo fiends—are skewing the numbers. The average person doesn't have a high-speed line, let alone the ability to read six newspapers per day.

Not all forms of information grew at the same pace, the Science study reveals. The amount of data stored in books roughly doubled between 1986 and 2007, a period during which the world population increased by about a third.

The increase in newsprint was a relatively manageable 91%, while available storage—a barometer researchers used to estimate the quantity of information—in audio cassettes, vinyl records and photo negatives all declined.

And nearly half the overall growth came from rapid improvements in hard-drive technology, making it possible to store high-resolution videos, photos and videogames as well as digital music.

Studies looking at the information glut do generally agree that there has been an enormous upsurge in information.

The Science study—which involved compiling disparate studies of the number of various devices and their capacity—found that in 2007, humanity was able to store 295 exabytes of information. That's 295 billion gigabytes, or about 500 million times the capacity of a typical desktop computer.

One byte is equivalent to eight bits, which are the smallest units of information. A single bit is the equivalent of answering one yes-or-no question.

Martin Hilbert, the lead author of the study, says that quantifying information is vital in order to understand it.

"If you cannot express it in numbers, you cannot do science with it," says Dr. Hilbert, an economist and researcher at the University of Southern California's Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism.

Reducing all pieces of knowledge—whether pixels, words or musical notes—to digital bits makes them easier to analyze. But bits are neutral about the value of knowledge. "You can get a lot of information out of reading a half-megabyte book, compared to watching a one-gigabyte TV show," says Roger Bohn, director of the Global Information Industry Center at University of California, San Diego. Yet in 2007, the world's capacity to store video was about 6,000 times greater, in terms of bytes, than the storage capacity of paper, according to the Science study. That, says Prof. Bohn, is a "testament to how efficient language is for communicating concisely."
  
What is less ambiguous is that each piece of information, on average, gets less exposure today than in the past. W. Russell Neuman, professor of media technology at the University of Michigan, is leading a study that quantifies information in terms of minutes—how much time Americans devote to consuming information, and how much time it would take to consume all the available information.

In preliminary results, published online in 2009, the researchers found that in 2005 people spent about one minute consuming media for every 1,000 minutes available—a ratio that has grown roughly tenfold since 1960.

While the amount of information is growing very fast, so might our capacity to use or filter it, says Prof. Neuman. He notes that many new tools increase ease of consumption, such as search engines and digital video recorders.

Counting the world's bytes, he says, makes the mistake of "focusing simply on capacities of machines, and not on how people are responding to the capacities of machines."

Monday, May 2, 2011

Red Flags That Tempt I.R.S Auditers + Average Deduction Amounts By Income Bracket

from:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Red-flags-that-tempt-the-tax-brn-4195544266.html?x=0&.v=1

It is the most dreaded letter a taxpayer can receive.

Dear Taxpayer,
Some of the information that you provided to us does not agree with the information we received from other sources.
-- The Internal Revenue Service

You've just joined an elite club, one whose initiation ritual is an IRS audit. Unfortunately, you can't refuse membership -- and the dues could be astronomical.

When the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act was enacted in 1998, lawmakers ordered the agency to focus more on taxpayer rights instead of collection activities. Not surprisingly, the number of audits -- or examinations, as the agency prefers to call them -- dropped dramatically.

The first year of the kinder, gentler IRS, about one of every 79 tax returns was audited. By 2003, it was even easier for tax scofflaws; that year, according to IRS data, only one of every 150 individual taxpayers was audited.

But the tax times, they are a-changing.

More audit attention

IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman says he wants to balance his agency's enforcement and service responsibilities. To that end, he has announced programs designed to take into consideration the financial struggles that many taxpayers are encountering in today's economy.

But balance doesn't mean taxpayers are off the hook. Facing pressure from a Congress dealing with a growing federal deficit, the IRS has made it clear it takes the enforcement portion of its job seriously.

Audits have been increasing, although the pace was slow in fiscal year 2010. According to the IRS' 2010 annual data book, individual taxpayer audits last year were up slightly, just more than 1 percent. Of that number, says the IRS, individual income tax returns reporting higher adjusted gross incomes were more likely to be examined.

But the rich aren't the only targets. Recent tax law changes, particularly when it comes to confusing tax breaks such as the first-time homebuyer credit, always prompt closer looks at returns. And if you're a small-business person, either as a partnership or a Schedule C filer reporting self-employment income on your personal tax return, make sure you take extra care with your returns.

And those with lower incomes that make them eligible for the complicated earned income tax credit also face added scrutiny. Last year, nearly 30 percent of audited returns claimed this tax credit.

What's the DIF?

When it comes to avoiding prying IRS eyes, it's best to be just one of the crowd. "Don't draw any more attention to your return than you need to," says Robert G. Nath, author of "The Unofficial Guide to Dealing with the IRS." "Simple, plain-vanilla returns are fairly safe."

The IRS says there are several ways a return can be selected for audit and the first is via the agency's computer-scoring system known as Discriminant Information Function, or DIF. The IRS evaluates tax returns based on IRS formulas, and DIF is based on deductions, credits and exemptions with norms for taxpayers in each of the income brackets.

The actual scoring formula to determine which tax returns are most likely to be in error is a closely guarded secret. But Nath, a tax attorney in the Washington, D.C., area, says it's no mystery the system is designed to screen for returns that could put more money in the government Treasury.

How do your deductions compare?

Tax experts believe one discriminant information function component looks at average deduction amounts. This allows IRS examiners to spot inconsistencies, such as a high mortgage interest deduction and low income.

Tax specialists at CCH Inc. examined 2008 return statistics, the latest complete data, and came up with the following itemized deduction averages. These are for illustrative purposes only. CCH experts note that the IRS takes a dim view of taxpayers who base their claimed deductions on these figures. The numbers can be useful, however, in giving you a general idea as to whether certain deductions on your return might seem out of line.

Check average deduction amounts
 
Income rangeMedical expensesTaxes paidInterest paidCharitable contributions
$15,000-$30,000$7,074$3,147$9,245$2,024
$30,000-$50,000$6,153$3,830$9,055$2,189
$50,000-$100,000$7,102$6,050$10,659$2,693
$100,000-$200,000$9,269$10,798$13,734$3,757
$200,000-$250,000$21,554$18,164$18,570$5,895
More than $250,000$37,143$50,267$27,865$23,930
Allison Einbinder, owner of Dollars & Sense, a tax and accounting firm in Oakland, Calif., recommends that all filers review the differential comparisons. How you stack up against a national standard, she says, will give you an idea of whether the IRS might take a closer look at your return.
So what is likely to trigger a discriminant information function red flag?
  • Higher incomes.
  • Income other than basic wages; for example, contract payments.
  • Unreported income, such as investment returns.
  • Home-based businesses, especially when in addition to salary income, and home-office deductions.
  • Noncash charitable deductions.
  • Large business meal and entertainment deductions.
  • Excessive business auto usage.
  • Losses from an activity that could be viewed as a hobby rather than a business.
  • Large casualty losses.
Returns claiming the earned income tax credit, designed as a tax break for lower-income wage earners, also catch IRS eyes. The credit's complexity often results in legitimate mistakes on returns. Some filers, however, have been caught making false claims to increase the payment the credit provides.

Schedule C filers who report a business loss also are likely to face more questions from the IRS. The agency wants to be sure that it was indeed the economy, and not an effort to trim taxes, that produced the bad business results.

Don't cheat yourself

But don't let fear of a potential audit discourage you from filing for credits or taking legitimate deductions.
Although some tax return actions are likely to flag your return, Nath says that doesn't necessarily mean you'll be audited.

Even if your return is questioned, it's not a foregone conclusion that you'll end up owing the IRS. As long as your deductions and expenses are legitimate and you have documentation, Nath says, they will be allowed.
The groundwork you put into preparing your return will pay off in an audit situation. "Be confident in what you entered," says Einbinder. "That's easy when you have good records to support your tax return entries."

And even if an audit doesn't go your way, don't despair. "You have rights to contest audits," Nath says, "at every level of the process." 

Read Bankrate's story on how to prepare for an audit in case you get summoned.

Ads We'd Never See Today

Just click on the ads to enlarge...


















Saturday, April 30, 2011

How to Identify Where a Driver is From

How to Identify Where a Driver is From

1. One hand on wheel, one hand on horn: Chicago.

2. One hand on wheel, one finger out window: New York.

3. One hand on wheel, one finger out window, cutting across all lanes of traffic: New Jersey.

4. One hand on wheel, one hand on newspaper, foot solidly on accelerator: Boston.

5. One hand on wheel, one hand on nonfat double decaf cappuccino, cradling cell phone, brick on accelerator, with gun in lap: Los Angeles.

6. Both hands on wheel, eyes shut, both feet on brake, quivering in terror: Ohio, but driving in California.

7. Both hands in air, gesturing, both feet on accelerator, head turned to talk to someone in back seat: Italy.

8. One hand on latte, one knee on wheel, cradling cell phone, foot on brake, mind on radio game: Seattle.

9. One hand on wheel, one hand on hunting rifle, alternating between both feet being on the accelerator and both feet on brake, throwing McDonald's bag out the window: Texas.

10. Four-wheel drive pick-up truck, shotgun mounted in rear window, beer cans on floor, squirrel tails attached to antenna: West Virginia.

11. Two hands gripping wheel, blue hair barely visible above windshield, driving 35 on the Interstate in the left lane with the left blinker on: Florida.  


Thanks to the Big Bog for this one!

Friday, April 29, 2011

Best Jersey Pizza

This place "Nellie's Eats" in Waldwick, N.J. used to be called Stasney's, a place we went to in the 1950's.  It's simple bar & grill that had fantastic thin crust pizza.  


More here:

http://www.tommyeats.com/tommyeats/2006/06/nellies_place_w-1.html

2001: A Space Odyssey - Film Review by James Berardinelli





United States/United Kingdom, 1968
U.S. Release Date: 4/3/68 (re-release scheduled 1/1/01)
Running Length: 2:19
MPAA Classification: PG (Mild violence, mild profanity)
Theatrical Aspect Ratio: 2.35:1

Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain (voice)
Director: Stanley Kubrick
Producer: Stanley Kubrick
Screenplay: Stanley Kubrick & Arthur C. Clarke, based on "The Sentinel" by Arthur C. Clarke
Cinematography: Geoffrey Unsworth
U.S. Distributor: MGM


Perhaps it takes the passage of time to gain the perspective to call some films great. Certain movies, despite being ridiculed upon their initial release, have been "re-discovered" years later and labeled as forgotten classics. It's a universal truth that art isn't always immediately recognized as such - this is why so many revered painters, authors, and composers have died in poverty and relative obscurity. 


Filmmakers face some of the same challenges - in a business climate, courage is the number one characteristic needed by anyone with the goal of fashioning a work that is deliberately thought-provoking but lacking in mass appeal. Such idealistic intentions won't inflate any director's bank account, but they may make an enduring statement. 

That brings us to the subject of this review: Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite gaining additional adherents and growing more respected with each passing day, 2001 would likely be a failure if shown to a typical, MTV-weaned group of multiplex patrons. 

Watching this film demands two qualities that are sadly lacking in all but the most mature and sophisticated audiences: patience and a willingness to ponder the meaning of what's transpiring on screen. 2001 is awe inspiring, but it is most definitely not a "thrill ride." It is art, it is a statement, and it is indisputably a cinematic classic. 

I was around in 1968 when 2001 was first released, but I wasn't old enough to be concerned with anything more substantive than bottles and sleep. However, in the intervening years, I have spoken to several individuals who attended premieres of the film. The level of anticipation surrounding 2001 was as high as that to accompany any cinematic event before or after. Not only had Kubrick developed the project in complete secrecy, but, with the space race in its final laps, the world was ready to inhale any whiff of science fiction. 

But 2001 did not satisfy everyone. In fact, the initial reaction could charitably be called mixed. While a minority of those in early audiences recognized that they had witnessed the birth of a masterpiece, many movie-goers were nonplused and confused. Several influential mainstream publications panned the film, and, while it was successful at the box office, it was not the blockbuster some had expected it to be. Yet 2001 did not die. Instead, its reputation grew, and, by the mid-'70s, it had become a Goliath.


I remember the first time I saw the movie. The year was 1981, and this country was in the post-Star Wars, early VCR era. Because of the rampant success of George Lucas' space opera, science fiction was once again in vogue. However, with home video still in its infancy, the opportunity did not exist for the average American to go to the nearest movie store, rent a few tapes, and pop them into the VCR. But many schools, striving to be on the cusp of technology in the name of education, owned video players, albeit of the bulky, unwieldy sort. 

My eighth grade teachers took advantage of the middle school's lone Betamax machine and arranged a showing of 2001 in an auditorium on an elevated 28" TV set. Their intentions were good, but the experience was anemic. Nevertheless, even under less-than-ideal circumstances, I recognized that there was something amazing about the movie. It was unlike anything I had previously seen on any screen, big or small. It was slow-moving, but there was a hypnotic quality to the proceedings. It would take the passage of three-quarters of a decade and another viewing (this time in a theatrical setting) before I began to qualify and quantify my impressions of 2001

It's questionable which element of 2001 stands out the most clearly: the pacing, the music, or the visuals. In truth, the three are inseparable. Like a skilled chef, Kubrick blended them together to form a dish of incomparable excellence. They are unique ingredients, yet, once mixed, they can no longer be reconstituted into their original forms. For most movies, this is not the case, but that's one of many areas in which 2001 is an exception. 

Listening to a soundtrack of this film provokes an avalanche of images in the mind's eye. Can anyone who has seen 2001 listen to the Johann Strauss' "Blue Danube Waltz" and not think of the shuttle docking at the space station? And Richard Strauss' rousing, unforgettable "Also Spoke Zarathustra" has become synonymous with this picture. (In fact, "Zaruathustra" is often referred to as the "Theme from 2001".) 

In terms of its approach to the science fiction genre, 2001 stands alone. This is a space-based movie without zooming spaceships, laser shootouts, or explosions. The action, to the degree that there is action, is viewed from a detached perspective. Spacecraft move (relatively) slowly, they do not zip around at the speed of light. The result is a cold, majestic motion picture, a movie that seeks to remind us of the vastness of space and our relatively insignificant place in it. 

Kubrick's intention with 2001 was not to thrill us with battles and pyrotechnics, but to daunt us with the realization of how much there is that we do not understand. The movie's slowness (and it is slow) not only allows us to absorb the images, music, and atmosphere, but provides the opportunity to think about the implications of what Kubrick is saying. As enjoyable as Star Wars is, it does not encourage deep introspection. 2001 demands it. 

I can think of two other movies that have consciously borrowed aspects of Kubrick's 2001 style. (There may be others, but either I have forgotten them or I never knew about them to forget.) They are Star Trek: The Motion Picture and Contact. Both slowed their pace to awe the viewer with a cavalcade of visual images. It worked in the latter case but not in the former. In Contact, as in 2001, there are deep philosophical issues involved. Star Trek, however, was designed to be an action/adventure film. The movie's attempts at grandeur are ineffective because the special effects represent little more than a series of colorful images. The docking of the shuttle with the Enterprise in Star Trek: The Motion Picture was said to have been directly inspired by the "Blue Danube Waltz" section of 2001, yet the experience is not the same. The reason? In 2001, this sequence exists on its own. It is powerful and important in its own right. In Star Trek, it's a nicely-scored, impressive-looking, overlong transition sequence to get Admiral Kirk from Earth to his beloved ship. 

2001 opens memorably in prehistoric times or during "The Dawn of Man", as the on-screen caption states. The sequence, which runs about 15 minutes, shows how ape-like creatures, after encountering an imposing black monolith (obviously the product of an alien technology), discover how to use the bones of an animal as a tool or a weapon. Like the Fruit of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden, this leads to a spurt of change and a fall from grace. Armed, primitive man becomes a danger not only to potential sources of food, but to himself. 

There is a jump cut as a bone thrown high into the air becomes a orbiting nuclear device, pushing the movie's time frame ahead thousands of years. Now, the human race has evolved. No longer Earthbound, they have ventured into the nearby Solar System. Kubrick's depiction of space travel is far more believable, albeit less romantic, than the visions presented in Star Trek and countless other futuristic projects. Of course, things in the movie are ahead of where they are in reality circa 2001. But, having worked on the picture during the height of space mania, Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke can be forgiven mistaking the transient space enthusiasm of the '60s for a trend that would last the rest of the century. If it had, the "science fiction" of 2001 might be "science fact" today. 

We encounter Dr. Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester), who is on his way to the moon to explore a strange, black monolith that has been discovered beneath the lunar surface. The object is broadcasting a signal in the direction of Jupiter, but no one understands why. The monolith's existence has become a matter of national security, and the reason for Dr. Floyd's arrival is a closely guarded secret. Accompanied by a group of respected scientists, he travels to the excavation site to examine the alien object. 

2001's third and lengthiest segment takes us aboard the space ship Discovery, which is bound for Jupiter to determine the reason why the monolith is sending signals out there. On board are two human crewmen, David Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood), three cryogenically suspended scientists, and the "brain" of the craft, the HAL 9000 computer (voice of Douglas Rain), one of moviedom's famously insane electronic entities. 

Once the crew recognizes that HAL may be unstable, they plan to deactivate the machine. However, HAL fights back, and the duel of minds between Bowman and the computer makes for the film's most dramatically tense situation. It is also during this portion of the movie that 2001 offers its frankest moments of humor (of the gallows variety, as a doomed HAL questions Bowman about his intentions) and pathos (as Bowman shuts the computer down -- HAL's rendition of "Daisy", coupled with his refrain of "I'm scared, Dave," is touching). 

The fourth and final portion of 2001, "Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite," generates the most questions. During these 20 minutes, Kubrick suggests man's place in the cosmos - that, although we think of ourselves as possessing godlike powers, we are actually low in the universal pecking order. The Discovery finds another monolith - only this one is much larger than its lunar counterpart and is floating in space. 

When Bowman takes a pod through it, he is catapulted into a space/time tunnel to a mysterious locale where he spends the rest of his life, reaching a ripe old age before expiring. At the time of his death, however, he is reborn as the "star child" - either the next stage in man's evolution or an entirely new life form. 

Many viewers who understand 2001 through the first two hours leave the theater confused because the movie raises new questions during the last reel, when a conventional film would be providing solutions. However, for someone who enjoys the opportunity to ponder a filmmaker's intentions and delve deeply into a movie's subtext, the final act of 2001 is a godsend. 

Anyone desperate for concrete answers to some of the unresolved issues can check out 2010. Produced in 1984, 16 years after Kubrick's original reached theaters, 2010 is a conventional sequel. However, while it rehabilitates HAL and solves the riddle of the monoliths, it doesn't wrap everything into a neat package. 2010 is a decent continuation of 2001 (and is well worth a rental) - just don't expect it to have the Kubrickian depth or grandeur. In fact, viewing 2010 is a good way to appreciate how much Kubrick contributed to 2001.

As is true of every Kubrick film, the meticulous attention to detail is evident. Working in close concert with co-screenwriter Arthur C. Clarke and other scientific advisors, Kubrick made sure that every aspect of the film conformed to known scientific fact. His vision is eerily accurate, and, even though we have not attained Clarke's prophesied advancements, we are on the same track. 

Additionally, there isn't a moment in 2001 that seems dated. The film could just as easily have been made in the '90s as in the '60s.

The Academy Award-winning special effects represent some of the most impressive model work ever committed to screen. They are at least the equal, if not superior to, George Lucas' efforts in Star Wars. Today, visual effects are all about pushing the digital envelope, but there are times when it's worth looking back to how things were done in a simpler era, when technological limitations demanded greater creativity. Douglas Trumbull's accomplishments in 2001 represent an innovative pinnacle.


The tag line for Alien, which was released about a decade after 2001, was "In space, no one can hear you scream." In truth, however, nearly every space movie (including Alien) has ignored the fact that sound waves cannot travel through the vacuum between stars and planets. Consequently, Kubrick opted for silence, and the result is eerie and memorable. Every time there's a space sequence, no sound can be heard - except for the occasional strains of the classical compositions used on the soundtrack. 

Music is critical to every aspect of the movie's success - even when the story has been told. The "Blue Danube Waltz" plays over the end credits, which last about four minutes. However, the piece is more than eight minutes in length, so the director allows it to continue after the credits have concluded. This gives audience members an opportunity to mull over what they have just seen before returning to the bustle of everyday life. 

From time-to-time, Kubrick worked with "name" actors (Peter Sellers in Lolita and Dr. Strangelove, Tom Cruise in Eyes Wide Shut, Jack Nicholson in The Shining), but the entire cast of 2001 is comprised of lesser-known performers. The reason is that this is not a character-based story. It's about experiences and ideas. 


The actors do competent jobs, but there are no true standouts. Douglas Rain, who provides the voice of HAL, is in many ways the most memorable, since his words and tone humanize the machine, transforming it into a tragic figure. 

HAL is the villain, but we can't help feeling a surge of sorrow for him, and his redemption in 2010 is welcome. Of the human performers, the one with the most screen time is Keir Dullea, whose Dave Bowman represents the focus of the third and fourth segments. Dullea's performance is non-emotive and mechanical, and it's interesting to note that HAL often seems more "human" than Dave. Following 2001, Dullea was offered a lot of work, much of it on television, but nothing high-profile. Similar statements can be made about Gary Lockwood (who is most recognizable for the starring role in the TV series, "The Lieutenant", which predated 2001 by five years) and William Sylvester (whose best roles were behind him). 

2001 needs to be experienced to be appreciated. It loses something on a TV screen; even the best home video setup can't replicate what it's like to see the movie in a theater.  

2001 does not build bonds between the viewers and the characters or set up a straightforward, linear storyline. Instead, it challenges the audience and inspires wonder. Proponents argue that this is Kubrick's best film; regardless of whether or not that is true, there's no doubting that this movie represents the product of a great director at the height of his powers. 

32 years after its release, 2001 has lost none of the qualities that make it an acknowledged masterwork. 

http://www.reelviews.net/movies/t/2001.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P95NWAHWLrc

© 2000 James Berardinelli 


Back Up