A genuine motivational poster from 1924, as shared here.
Holy crap. From the Guardian:
Trees burn as firefighters continue to battle the fire, which has encroached on Yosemite national park.
Both beautiful and utterly terrifying. Awe-inspiring and horrific.
This comes from Kai, my wife, who produced the film. She [quotes from] Rio Grande: ‘Get it done, Johnny Reb.’ It’s like, don’t make excuses. There aren’t any anymore. If you’re talking about it, you should be doing it and she doesn’t like to see talent go fallow. She doesn’t like to see people repeat themselves. She likes people to get it done, purely out of love of the person and then joy for the product itself. And that’s the thing: I talked about Much Ado for 10 years and it was Kai who finally said, ‘What if instead of talking about it . . . ’ and I went, ‘What?’ Someone will always tell you that you can’t. One of the things that she delighted in was the fact that, apart from telling the people at Marvel so that they didn’t freak out when they found out that I was directing another movie [while we were in postproduction on The Avengers], we really didn’t tell anybody. It was just our little thing. There’s an old thing they say: Writers never tell somebody what you’re writing because then you won’t write it down, and it’s kind of applied to the production in a way. If we let this get out and balloon into something that mattered to anybody besides us, we might not finish it.
From here. It’s Joss Whedon talking about tips for getting stuff done, which is at the top of my “I should get better at that” list currently.
The idea, I told her, was that the critic’s great calling — beyond reviewing movies and putting them in a wider context — was to stir the reader’s interest in learning more, and in so doing, deepen the relationship between the medium and its audience.
When you read Roger, you wanted to learn more. More about that director. More about that actor or screenwriter. More about the genre that the film exemplified. More about the nation whose culture birthed the people who made the film. More, more, more.
“How did Roger do that?” she asked. These kids with their reasonable follow-up questions.
I told her that while Roger could hold his own in a discussion with film academics and theorists, and had been known to spend several days breaking down particular films scene by scene before an audience, he never wrote his reviews in a way that made it seem as though the main point was to prove how smart he was, or to position himself in relation to other critics.
He built the core of his reviews around values or emotions, often both. His writing rarely failed to ask, What does this movie say about its subject, and about life? How did it make me feel, and how did it make me feel that way?
Some critics think these aren’t serious questions. Roger knew otherwise.
From here, by Matt Zoller Seitz as he takes over as editor of RogerEbert.com. Things I should always endeavor to remember.
She hit all the right checkboxes to get this crowd all jazzed up: Obama teleprompter jokes, White House tour cancellation jokes, jokes about her sex life, drinking a Super Big Gulp of Soda, gun talk, religion talk, a heartland twang voice, anti-DC trash talk, a Karl Rove swat, everything else. It worked. It was fun! She also let out a little hint about returning to politics…
…Which was of course a tease. She is not returning to politics anytime soon. She is an entertainer and part of her routine is to tease about how she may return to politics, for attention. She is not running for anything. If you see any story headlines this week like, “Is Palin Running in 2016?” then you should print out the full articles and burn them in a trash can, or bomb them. She likes playing pop star muse to the conservative movement, and that’s all.
The Guardian’s U.S. political coverage is the best U.S. political coverage. “If you see any story headlines this week like, ‘Is Palin Running in 2016’ then you should print out the full articles and burn them in a trash can, or bomb them.” I love the knowingness, and the comedy, in that.
Life during Primal Scream’s druggiest period must have been a constant stream of surprises. When I tell them that it’s hard to imagine a rock’n’roll band sitting down to write certain songs on More Light (the sprawling River of Pain’s impromptu orchestral crescendo being a good example), they look unsure as to what I mean, so I illustrate the example by saying that it’s easier, for example, to picture them writing a Stonesy guitar number like 1994’s Rocks.
“Rocks?” splutters Innes. “I didn’t even know we’d written it!”
At first I assume he’s joking but it turns out he’s deadly serious.
“[Alan] McGee phoned us up going: “You’ve got a great song,” and I thought: what the fuck are you talking about?”
“I can definitely remember recording it,” adds Gillespie, as if this deserves some kind of prize.
Oh, Primal Scream. Never change.
(I am very much looking forward to the new album.)
It’s tempting to point to this and just say “This,” but that’s a little too reductive. Instead, I’ll say that that strip is a wonderful summation of the weirdness of not only being a freelancer, but being a freelancer who works for online outlets. In particular, this bit –
– rings all too true in my brain.
Reading it was oddly comforting, and made me think that Internet freelancers should start a support group, or something.
Is the troll engaging in bigoted speech in order to call out, and therefore subvert, genuine expressions of bigotry? Is the troll attempting to make a larger claim about sensationalist corporate media? Is the troll merely a racist or misogynist who hides behind trollings. Is the troll engaging in bigoted speech in order to call out, and therefore subvert, genuine expressions of bigotry? Is the troll attempting to make a larger claim about sensationalist corporate media? Is the troll merely a racist or misogynist who hides behind trolling as a way to distance him or herself from his or her own beliefs? Some combination of the three? Something else entirely? Regardless of the insights these sorts of questions might yield, it is critical to acknowledge that the troll’s reasoning — what they really think about a given subject — is ultimately less important than the effects his or her behaviors have. Put simply, whether or not the troll “really” hates women, for example, doesn’t matter if the targeted women feel hated as a way to distance him or herself from his or her own beliefs? Some combination of the three? Something else entirely? Regardless of the insights these sorts of questions might yield, it is critical to acknowledge that the troll’s reasoning — what they really think about a given subject — is ultimately less important than the effects his or her behaviors have. Put simply, whether or not the troll “really” hates women, for example, doesn’t matter if the targeted women feel hated.
From here. I have such an odd relationship with trolls, and the purposes of trolling; I can’t help but feel that there really is some value to trolling, sometimes, as weird as that sounds.
[I]f you fail to keep our promise, may other writers anticipate your plots, may your publishers do you down in your contracts, may strangers sue you for libel, may your pages swarm with misprints and may your sales continually diminish. Amen.
That’s part of the initiation ceremony British mystery writers had to go through in order to join the wonderfully named Detection Club in the 1930s, written by Dorothy Sayers and available here. You can learn more about the Detection Club here.