Have you seen the new Disney series Jonas? It's the one about Kevin, Joe, and Nick, better known as The Jonas Brothers. (They also have a little brother who, while no cuter than that ghastly little Jimmy Osmond was, has the grand benefit of being referred to as "Bonus Jonas.")
Jonas (the series): Picture the Monkees, mixed with a little Partridge Family (but with two parents) and, in a particuarly good episode, a dash of a G-rated Flight of the Conchords parody song thrown in for good measure. (I had thought each episode had a song, but I just witnessed one without -- and, I must admit, I missed it, although the plot of remaking the Jonas Family home movies that they had accidentally destroyed was, in fact, cute.)
As much as I don't want to like them, I fear I do....well, apart from their needing a good haircut or at least a comb.
The good news is that last Father's Day my daughters gave me a Jonas Brothers pillow, so my fan-ness has some street cred (at least as far as chronology goes -- and at least as far as Jonas, "street cred" and "I" can be mentioned in the same breath without laughing).
BUT, if you have time to watch only one show aimed at the youngish set, then it shouldn't be Jonas anyway, that honor goes to iCarly on Nickelodeon.
High-schooler Carly, best friend Sam(antha), and boy-who-loves-Carly/webcamera guy Freddie, put on regular web program upstairs in her room, while her older brother/guardian/artist Spencer tries not to burn their place down. (No parents here to interfere, although the practical uncle is always a threat to take Carly away.)
Here we have the web generation doing what several generations of American youth have traditionally done -- goof around, make dumb jokes, laugh at any stupid stuff that comes to mind -- but then, as only this generation has ever been able to do, share it for all the world to see. The jokes are probably no funnier than those we thought of as kids, but the intimacy of those inside jokes can potentially reach a much wider audience. The hope, of course, is that the extended intimacy inspires the audience to its own merriment and creativity, while the real fear is that the audience will simply sit back passively and not act or react at all.
Come to think of it, kinda like a blog, no?
08 June 2009
Not that I'm counting, but...
...the trials and tribulations facing a department chair at this time of year (i.e., cleaning up messes made by any number of folk -- including myself -- during the Spring semester and, indeed, all year long), encourage me to look ahead:
Only 449 more days until my term ends.
Only 449 more days until my term ends.
Notes from the Tony Awards
In the "surprise" opening number, which considering it was merely a medley of things presently on the Great White Way and so hardly was surprising at all, Stockard Channing sang "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" from the revival of Pal Joey, and, while it was far from a great performance, at least she was performing a song worth hearing – especially when paired with (and compared to) “I’m Alive” sung by some guy from Next to Normal. Why is it that most songs from contemporary musicals are so repetitive? I believe the only thing he sang was -- wait for it -- yes, “I’m alive.” There’s more wit and lyricism in any one line of almost any Rodgers and Hart song than anything recent I heard last night…and we won’t even mention the music.
Liza Minnelli looked and sounded terrible (to be polite). As my wife explained to our girls, “Like her mother, she’s had a very hard life which has included drug abuse, etc…” To which I added, “But her mother was smart enough to die before she turned into this.”
9 to 5: The Musical.
Shrek the Musical.
Rock of Ages (was that really “Don’t Stop Believing” I was hearing?)
And these are the ones the American Theatre Wing chose to put on stage to highlight itself. Broadway’s not dead; it’s simply gone senile…
From the vaults: Elton John writing an Aida is akin to Neil Simon offering his own Macbeth. Not saying they can’t do it, but, man, they really shouldn’t.
Liza Minnelli looked and sounded terrible (to be polite). As my wife explained to our girls, “Like her mother, she’s had a very hard life which has included drug abuse, etc…” To which I added, “But her mother was smart enough to die before she turned into this.”
9 to 5: The Musical.
Shrek the Musical.
Rock of Ages (was that really “Don’t Stop Believing” I was hearing?)
And these are the ones the American Theatre Wing chose to put on stage to highlight itself. Broadway’s not dead; it’s simply gone senile…
From the vaults: Elton John writing an Aida is akin to Neil Simon offering his own Macbeth. Not saying they can’t do it, but, man, they really shouldn’t.
05 June 2009
"And that made all the difference" (or should that be "sum")
Recently Congress mandated a "net price calculator." As an article in The Chronicle of Higher Ed states:
"Congress mandated the new feature last year to give prospective students a clear idea of the actual cost to attend each institution. The net figure will be derived from total cost—tuition, fees, room, board, and other expenses—minus average aid from all sources of grants (but not loans).
"Congress mandated the new feature last year to give prospective students a clear idea of the actual cost to attend each institution. The net figure will be derived from total cost—tuition, fees, room, board, and other expenses—minus average aid from all sources of grants (but not loans).
Colleges will be required to display the figures through a net-price calculator, a tool they will create on their Web sites."
How "clear" an idea exactly will students get from such a number?
My question is: Can schools factor in the cost to students -- if the don't attend (or attend a more, or less, prestigious university): career earnings potential, the trouble they may get into outside of school; the lectures, classes, and parties they'll never attend; other lost opportunities?
Come to think of it this calculator could be a real metaphysical wake-up call.
A financial rendering of "The Road Not Taken"!
Now THAT would be a tool worth puttin' on a website.
03 June 2009
Quick thought on the new Scorsese project on Frank Sinatra
Who portrays Sinatra will make little difference (i.e., he could be a big name like Leo or a nobody like the mini-series star Philip Caswell was ... still is?).
The focus of the script will be what makes or breaks the project.
If the director tries to tell anything approaching Frank's whole story, it will fail pretty miserably (i.e., it will shed no light on any aspect of the artist or man, although I'm sure there'll be lotsa glamorous women and hoodlums -- not necessarily in that order).
What he needs to do is what the 2003 film The Night We Called it a Day, starring Dennis Hopper as Frank and Melanie Griffith as Barbara Marx, did: focus on a specific period/incident in Frank's life. In the case of the Hopper film it was the 1974 Australia incident, in which Frank essentially ticked off an entire continent and was stuck in a hotel room while the popular resentment against him played out across the country. The film, while far from great, is worth seeing for Hopper's depiction of Sinatra and, even more, because it didn't bite off more than it could chew.
I'm assuming a great director like Scorsese will be able to craft a better film than the 2003 movie, but the approach should be the same: take a particular incident that will allow us to see the artist, if not for the first time, then at least more deeply than ever before on screen.
I'll be at opening day no matter what, but I'd really prefer to be eager to see the final cut!
The focus of the script will be what makes or breaks the project.
If the director tries to tell anything approaching Frank's whole story, it will fail pretty miserably (i.e., it will shed no light on any aspect of the artist or man, although I'm sure there'll be lotsa glamorous women and hoodlums -- not necessarily in that order).
What he needs to do is what the 2003 film The Night We Called it a Day, starring Dennis Hopper as Frank and Melanie Griffith as Barbara Marx, did: focus on a specific period/incident in Frank's life. In the case of the Hopper film it was the 1974 Australia incident, in which Frank essentially ticked off an entire continent and was stuck in a hotel room while the popular resentment against him played out across the country. The film, while far from great, is worth seeing for Hopper's depiction of Sinatra and, even more, because it didn't bite off more than it could chew.
I'm assuming a great director like Scorsese will be able to craft a better film than the 2003 movie, but the approach should be the same: take a particular incident that will allow us to see the artist, if not for the first time, then at least more deeply than ever before on screen.
I'll be at opening day no matter what, but I'd really prefer to be eager to see the final cut!
02 June 2009
How do you spell S-O-D-E-R-L-I-N-G?
Last night my older daughter was recognized by the New Britain Board of Education for her achievement of running the Spelling Bee table, as it were...winning the district-wide Bee each of the past five years in the only grades for which they hold the competitions (4th through 8th grades).
She received a special trophy with a goofy bee on the top (to go with the more traditional trophy cups she had received at each victory), and it struck me that she did what Rafael Nadal didn't at the French Open, win from her very first attempt and repeat that accomplishment four more years in a row.
I told her that after seeing her very first bee victory in the school-wide competition in 4th grade, I never doubted her winning any of the bees in her first three years since she answered each word with such calm confidence, while those around her lost their cools. It was only last year in 7th grade, when I saw a momentary blankness in the school-wide competition, that I thought, "Ya know, she might be beatable." If she were beatable last year, she wasn't beaten; and, of course, she was unbeaten again this year.
A remarkable accomplishment indeed.
She admitted to me last night that, no matter how it appeared, she was nervous throughout and never had been as confident as I was (which, when one is doing the competing, is probably a very good thing). I, by the way, kept my confidence to myself, and along with her mom, made it clear the point was to have fun.
Her younger sister experienced the other side. In her very first year of competing, she made it to the district-wide competition but came in fourth when she spelled v-a-l-i-d when the word was b-a-l-l-a-d. (We're still not sure why the judges didn't stop her when she clearly said "valid" before spelling it, so there was no doubt that she just misheard the word. Of course, while one can have the word repeated, one wouldn't ask for the word again if they didn't think they misheard it.) Ask her, winning is more fun than losing -- even to your best friend. You're sad that you didn't win, but that doesn't mean you don't feel happy for the winner. (Yes, Lebron, even if you're a fierce competitor!)
***
A small post script for those inevitable questions: she never entered the national spelling competition because 1) it requires a local sponsor (usually a Scripps-Howard newspaper) that at present doesn't exist around these parts, 2) the New Britain Schools' bee time frame never fit the national one, and 3) quite to my liking, the NB bees focus on words that kids who read just might come across in their reading (as opposed to the national bee in which each word is really a puzzle of national origin, derivation, and linguistic history, with many words that no one outside of very specialized fields of study rarely, if ever, will come across).
She received a special trophy with a goofy bee on the top (to go with the more traditional trophy cups she had received at each victory), and it struck me that she did what Rafael Nadal didn't at the French Open, win from her very first attempt and repeat that accomplishment four more years in a row.
I told her that after seeing her very first bee victory in the school-wide competition in 4th grade, I never doubted her winning any of the bees in her first three years since she answered each word with such calm confidence, while those around her lost their cools. It was only last year in 7th grade, when I saw a momentary blankness in the school-wide competition, that I thought, "Ya know, she might be beatable." If she were beatable last year, she wasn't beaten; and, of course, she was unbeaten again this year.
A remarkable accomplishment indeed.
She admitted to me last night that, no matter how it appeared, she was nervous throughout and never had been as confident as I was (which, when one is doing the competing, is probably a very good thing). I, by the way, kept my confidence to myself, and along with her mom, made it clear the point was to have fun.
Her younger sister experienced the other side. In her very first year of competing, she made it to the district-wide competition but came in fourth when she spelled v-a-l-i-d when the word was b-a-l-l-a-d. (We're still not sure why the judges didn't stop her when she clearly said "valid" before spelling it, so there was no doubt that she just misheard the word. Of course, while one can have the word repeated, one wouldn't ask for the word again if they didn't think they misheard it.) Ask her, winning is more fun than losing -- even to your best friend. You're sad that you didn't win, but that doesn't mean you don't feel happy for the winner. (Yes, Lebron, even if you're a fierce competitor!)
***
A small post script for those inevitable questions: she never entered the national spelling competition because 1) it requires a local sponsor (usually a Scripps-Howard newspaper) that at present doesn't exist around these parts, 2) the New Britain Schools' bee time frame never fit the national one, and 3) quite to my liking, the NB bees focus on words that kids who read just might come across in their reading (as opposed to the national bee in which each word is really a puzzle of national origin, derivation, and linguistic history, with many words that no one outside of very specialized fields of study rarely, if ever, will come across).
01 June 2009
Sing along with the Second Amendment!
In light of the "Gun Sales Skyrocket" piece in Saturday's New Britain Herald, here are my favorite gun songs (in alphabetical order):
“Bang Bang” (from Robin and the Seven Hoods) (Cahn/Heusen)
“Hallelujah” (L. Cohen)
only for the line: “All I’ve ever learned from love is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you”
“Bang Bang” (from Robin and the Seven Hoods) (Cahn/Heusen)
“Hallelujah” (L. Cohen)
only for the line: “All I’ve ever learned from love is how to shoot at someone who outdrew you”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
