Sunday, February 10, 2013

Okay, next thing on the technological list

Other people's blogs, the comments are tagged with a proper time and date stamp. Mine just have the time, it would be nice to have the year as well.

Suggestions anyone?


Anonymous said...

Won't have time to get too far into this until I get back from the pickies, but by the looks of things, if you go into "settings -> language and formatting" there's an option for "comment timestamp formatting" you can change.

Melba said...

'Enjoy' Django. Although 'enjoy' is not the word. Let's discuss when you have time.

Melba said...

Have made a change in the settings, this is a test.

Melba said...

Nope didn't work but I notice that the blog post time-stamp has changed to the format I want. Will keep trying.

Melba said...

Didn't work cause I'm an idiot. I have now changed the 'comments time-stamp format' and it's bluddy worked!

Thanks Alex, you are ace.

Melba said...

PS this is awesome, it has applied new time-stamps to ALL MY COMMENTS - love it. History is alive!

Anonymous said...

Hoorah! It worked.

Back from Django. I don't think I can have a single strong opinion about this movie. I can't even really get myself to think of it as a single movie at this point.

For about two hours I really, thoroughly enjoyed a story that, I thought, quite skillfully wove together a bunch of very disparate elements (humour, tragedy, horrific violence, silly violence). I laughed, I cared, at one point, which I think was very impressively done (the flashback scene where Hildy is whipped), I even felt a little moist in the eyes ...

... and then Schultz shoots Candie ... and the Candie Land shootout begins ...

... and the movie I had been enjoying completely shifts gears and dissolves into, what appeared to me to be, a gratuitous, farcical, cartoony, tactless, soulless, artless, contemptible piece of shit.

Also, fuck Tarantino's stupid cameo and his stupid ocker accent.

Very disappointed.

But still loved those first two hours.

Anonymous said...

What'd you think?

Melba said...

Yeah, the Candie Land shootout was farcical and pointless (other than in Quentin's own mind, perhaps an effort to win the 'most bloodshed' award). How about that moment when Candie's sister gets shot and flies backwards: yes, cartoony.

I didn't have such a strong reaction though I don't think, I just went with it thinking: Fucking Tarantino. Typical.

The cameo was so bad it was funny, but you're right, the crappy bits did undermine the good bits. Too long, needed better editing but because he's Tarantino, he gets away with it. How about that scene where Django's horse does the walk back and the fancy-steps? I can see Tarantino in a production meeting going: And the horse can do some of that fancy footwork, it's Django, see, making his wife laugh? And no body saying: that sucks. Although I kinda think it did work, it was very indulgent.

Glad you saw it. I think the good stuff outweighed the bad stuff enough for me to give it a balance of +. I can't rate it, I can't even really qualify my response but it's more + than -.

Apparently he's winding up, is only doing one or two other movies. I was trying to think what his next 'theme' will be.

Melba said...

And by good stuff I mean 'good stuff'

Anonymous said...

Also, I see SBS has been running quite a few docos on female sexuality.

They've got one up at the moment called "The Wankers" which claims to be about the history of female masturbation, the invention of the vibrator and genital mutilation; and "G Spotting" about the legendary and mysterious G-Spot.

You interested in this stuff at all?

Anonymous said...

He is looking a lot older than the last time I saw him.

I had this vision of Tarantino and his editing assistant sitting around putting together this wonderful western buddy film about a German immigrant and a freed slave pulling a scam on a plantation owner. The conversation goes like this:

Tarantino: We really nailed a positive message of black empowerment here, hey?

Other guy: Yeah, sort of.

Tarantino: Whaddya mean?

Other guy: Well, for it do be a proper story of black empowerment, Django would have to triumph on his own rather than needing the help of a white man.

Tarantino: Oh shit, you're right! We need to re-shoot the ending.

Other guy: We don't have the time or money.

Tarantino: Bullshit. I made the whole of Reservoir Dogs with less. And we'll chuck in a bunch of hip-hop culture/gangsta/pimp references. It'll be great.

Other guy: Shit. Should've kept my mouth shut.

Anonymous said...

Also, and this isn't the sort of thing that I normally complain about, and this isn't so much a complaint as an observation ...

... but you mentioned Candie's sister and Django's wife ...

You notice there weren't really any female characters so much as just sort of female props?

I really thought they were going somewhere with those two until everything flew off the rails.

Melba said...

"Flew off the rails" or "flew backwards through the door"?

I *should* be interested in the female sexuality/masturbation stuff but at the moment my focus is not on the sex ed teaching so much (right now). We're taking bookings, pretty set up, my colleague is more into the continuing reading/shaping but I'm distracted by my writing stuff and to be honest, I'm not really doing my professional reading/watching at the moment cause I've got better things to think about, but thanks.

I like your imagined Django scene and you're right. Quentin just wanted to get Christoph Waltz in there again because he's fucking awesome.

And yes, the sister and the wife. Can't remember their CH names which means they weren't that significant at all. At least Pulp had Uma and Kill Bill WAS Uma. I suspect he's replaced his muse Uma with muse Waltz. I mean Waltz is amazing but... he's not a woman.

Anonymous said...

No worries. If I see any more docos, I won't bother mentioning them. Not for a while anyway. At least until things get sorted with your book.

And I'm not the sort of person who demands great female characters in every story, but this stood out to me.

The door thing was bloody ridiculous. At least her comeuppance wasn't to be raped by slaves. That's the sort of thing they did in the old balcksploitation films that this obviously drew inspiration from. I guess even Tarantino has his limits.

No argument about Waltz though. It just bugged me the manner in which his character was dispatched. How about this:

Schultz refuses to shake Candie's hand, the three heroes ride off, Candie goes up to a top floor balcony (or something) and shoots Schultz with a rifle (reflecting the earlier scenes with Schultz and Django shooting people with rifles from long distances). Maybe they ride for a while and Schultz gets to make a final speech before he dies (maybe not) Django and wife are then pursued, pulling Django around again from manhunter to hunted man, but now with extra confidence and ability. Eventually he faces Candie man to man, as an equal, killing him of course, and avenging his friend.

The end.

Maybe a bit obvious, but it couldn't be worse than what we got, could it?

Melba said...

Yeah I'm the same, I don't need great or even any female characters but now you mention it, it was quite weak.

Did you notice the age of the sister. She was like an ageing (aged) southern belle, and she an Candie kissed on the lips when they greeted each other. It was like she was zoned out - it was mentioned she was a widow. Something weird going on there that no doubt Quentin had worked out in his 800 pages of backstory for her character.

I like your ending better.

If you liked Waltz, check him out in a movie called Carnage. It's got Jodie Foster, Kate Winslett and John C Reilly. It's a Polanski film, after a play so it's very play'ish and at times, overwrought and a bit clunky BUT Waltz is good in it and it's quite an interesting watch.

Anonymous said...

I think I will check that out. Thank you. I've always liked Jodie Foster, though not always the movies she's been in.

You know the stereotype about southerners and inbreeding, right? I'm fairly sure there was an implication of incest there. I noticed the zoned thing and the age thing too, but then I started thinking about how old DiCaprio is and whether or not he just looks younger than he's supposed to. But yes, I'm taking it as more weight to the theory that there was probably a proper ending written at some point that elaborated on all this but got binned somewhere along the line.

And speaking of DiCaprio and actors, what's your general opinion of DiCaprio; good actor, or just someone with presence and charisma?

Melba said...

I reckon the back-story to that was that Candie killed the sister's husband for whatever reason.

Leo DiCaprio, what can I say. I love him. I think he is someone with presence and charisma but who also is a good actor. I've seen him in everything, starting with What's Eating Gilbert Grape where I *seriously* thought they had gotten a person w/ intellectual disability to play the part (what an idiot I was, and that was AFTER I had worked for 2 years with teenagers w/ intellectual disabilities. I was a fool for thinking it but he was convincing, he really nailed that role). I think he's good in almost everything: The Beach, Romeo & Juliet, he's amazing in The Basketball Diaries and I am one of the few people in the world who will confess to liking Titanic, mainly because of him and Winslet. Gangs of New York and Blood Diamond: good. Movies I'm meh about: Catch Me If You Can, Revolutionary Road & Inception. Meh. He's probably good in those movies but I didn't like the movies themselves so he vanished for me.

Can't wait for Gatsby, really can't wait. I am a fangirl, it's true but it's not just about him being a spunk and having presence, I do think he can act. I think that he himself is about the acting, not the looks, and that comes across. Doesn't hurt that he's pretty.

Anonymous said...

Meh. He's probably good in those movies but I didn't like the movies themselves so he vanished for me.

So, you tend to not notice good performances unless they take place in movies you like? For some reason that seems kind of harsh to me. Probably because I like watching B movies and tend to see a lot of talented/skilled actors stuck in shitty movies/roles because they're either "too ugly" or haven't had their big break.

I definitely agree about Gilbert Grape but some of these examples I'm not so sure of. He does give ... um, "big", intense performances. But I dunno, sometimes I feel like I'm sitting right in front of a stage, watching an actor who wants to make sure the person in the back row "gets it".

You probably don't agree with that assessment, but you know what I'm talking about, right?

Melba said...

Hey Alex, here's an answer to your oldish question on whether I only like or notice Leo in movies I like. Well, it's like anything, if I'm not enjoying a movie particularly, then I won't be so focused on the actors. I like watching good-looking people OR great actors OR both, and I think Leo is pretty fine. But TBH it's probably more about the spunk factor, I just think he can act as well. Better than some who are beefcake and can't act. That doesn't mean I don't appreciate actors like Daniel Day-Lewis or the other one who I always mix up with DDL - they've been in a variety of roles and movies I haven't always loved the film but have appreciated their skills. SO I'm contradicting myself there, yeah.

OK put it this way I've enjoyed most of Leo's movies; liked the premise, liked the acting (everyone's including him) and liked him. Then there's been a couple that I didn't really enjoy so much so can't say whether he was good or not. He probably was, just as Kate Winslet was probably good in Revolution Road. I usually like her too but for some reason, that movie did nothing for me so it meant their performances did nothing for me. It's very hard for me to explain.

Melba said...

I've got the feeling that response will just make you ask more questions! Heh

Anonymous said...

No, actually, I think that clears things up pretty well. Thanks.

Melba said...

Oh I'm glad, I was thinking I was going to struggle to articulate this any more. I need to just start saying 'I don't know' sometimes and not feel I have to work everything out.

Anonymous said...

It's funny you say that. My original response was a long ramble about how, since I've been talking to you, my own attitudes towards being consistent and non-contradictory all the time have changed and that I think I'm also now more willing to just take the stick out of my arse and say "I don't know" about how/why I think/feel in relation to certain things.

But I couldn't word it in such a way that it didn't sound completely insulting, so I just deleted it.

Actually, I feel now like I might have mentioned this before. I've got sort of a weird Deja Vu feeling about it.

Melba said...

That's funny. I've worn you down, Alex!