Charlie Rose on the Chase Bank Loss

Wow! What an amazing show I just watched (some of)! I had just finished watching an embarrassingly lame re-working of The Hound of the Baskervilles* on the new, modern-day Sherlock (a critical darling I have no use for whatsoever, but I digress…), and in looking on my cable guide for something else, I found I was listening to someone debating the Chase bank loss in derivatives trading, and wanting to be sure I was correct (enough) in my facts in an earlier post, I listened momentarily, and then I actually did the unthinkable: I tuned in (well, momentarily, anyway)! (<Long sentence, huh? I’ll bet I can beat it, though; but maybe not in this post.)

So anyway, this was Charlie Rose, the interminably boring PBS talk show, that I was watching, and it was actually kind of fun, for once. I mean, not really in what they were droning on about, but in what I was reading into it. You see, for one thing, this show seemed like what a show like Crossfire would be like if NPR hosted it: a host moderating between two people with opposing viewpoints on a critical issue of the day, and with everyone being very polite and civil, and speaking in the tones of voice that make you feel as though you’ve been slipped an Ambien 10 in your cup of chamomile tea. (Next thing you know, you’ll be sleep-driving with NPR on your car stereo! It’s a conspiracy, I tells ya’!) And there were other fun things aplenty as well!

Okay, so the first thing that grabbed me was this: the pro-bank guy was some obvious nerd with a suit and glasses on spouting lots of intricate investment jargon in a very nasaly voice with an American accent. But then he was countered by an attractive blonde woman in fashionable clothes, but with one of those upper-class British accents that made her sound like a news anchor on CNN International. So naturally I started thinking about who was more convincing here: The guy seemed to have more insider knowledge of the investment world, but the woman seemed to have more gravitas, so it was kind of a tie. I couldn’t help wondering what it would have been like had they been more the same type. But then again, they probably don’t make them in the same type with different views, just like they don’t make them in polar opposites without differing viewpoints, now do they?

Oh, but just as the novelty of this juxtaposition began to fade away, then they started mixing their metaphors as they spoke about stuff, and I became fascinated and confused at the same time. First, the guy said something about short and long leashes, and shorter and longer runways, and I found myself wondering if there are new leash laws for airplanes, or if there’s a new breed of dog that can fly. Oh, but then someone said something about investment strategies being akin to children’s lettered blocks, and then someone else said it was like Star Trek finance, and my ears pricked up again! (Can you be more contradictory?) I found myself wondering if it was the original Star Trek, or Star Trek: The Next Generation? I only wondered because if it was TNG, and the banks lost a lot of money, they could just use the replicator to make more. And then I realized that’s what The Fed has been doing, and then I saw Ben Bernanke in a Star Trek uniform, etc., in my mind’s eye, and he was commanding the replicator to print up trillions of dollars, while Jean-Luc Picard waited impatiently behind him for his “Earl Grey: hot!”

Anyway, I could go on all night, but you’ve probably stopped reading already anyway. Suffice it to say: Charlie Rose is a lot more interesting than I had originally thought! I move to take back my previous woefully ignorant slander! (Dare I say it? “Sorry, Charlie!”)

Anyway, this is Charlie Rose, for those who are unfamiliar with him or his show (Sorry, Charlie!):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AooImsHwFDs&feature=related

That’s right, Charlie Rose: A rose by any other name may smell as sweet, but Star-Kist wants tunas that taste good, not that smell good (or that have their own boring talk shows on PBS)!

* Lame because this plot device has been done countless times before on American TV and in American movies for literally decades at this point! But they’re Brits, so maybe they’ve never seen it before and thought it was new. (I’m sure it happens every now and then.)

Diabolique and Psycho

TCM showed Diabolique yesterday as part of their “Essentials” series. I remember it especially well, since I’ve wanted to record it for a while, and I checked my cable guide to see if anything good was going to be on TCM this weekend, but they said not, and so I randomly turned on the TV to find Diabolique two-thirds of the way over on TCM Saturday evening. (#@$%&!) So anyway, I did manage to see the famous bathtub scene, and after seeing it, it gave me an idea, and I’m pretty sure this is right.

I think we’ve all heard plenty about Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, and why it was shot in black & white, etc. Supposedly, Hitchcock wanted to see if he could use the methods of one William Castle (who was doing huge business with low budgets and silly stories) and outdo him by miles. The result was Psycho, shot in black & white with his TV crew, and based upon a sensational novel by Robert Bloch.

But there’s more to this story, I think. (Apart from the struggles at Paramount, I mean.) Alfred Hitchcock very much wanted to make the movie Diabolique himself (based on a novel called Celle qui n’était plus: She Who Was No More in English), but someone else had beaten him to the punch for the film rights: one Henri-Georges Clouzot. So Hitchcock immediately grabbed the film rights to another novel by the same guys (Boileau-Narcejac): D’entre les Morts, which became Vertigo, and he made that instead. But Diabolique was huge, collassal, stupendous, terrific, etc., and I believe this stuck in Hitchcock’s craw, because Henri-Georges Clouzot was his big international rival for that “Master of Suspense” title, and to be fair, they were both contenders for it.

In any case, Diabolique was shot in black & white, and it was a crackerjack suspense/horror film, culminating in an unforgettable climax involving a horrific scene in a bathtub. Well, this was surely the talk of many hoity-toity film snob circles, and it’s my belief that Hitchcock was bothered by this scene having such a huge impact, and he wanted very much to be able to outdo this scene in such a crushingly dominating way that he would forever wash away Clouzot’s triumph by outshining it on its own terms.

And here enters our story one Robert Bloch, a horror writer with dreams of movie stardust, and I believe he, realizing that Clouzot’s movie was a smash, and knowing Hitchcock had wanted to make it, conceived of a story which would show Alfred Hitchcock a way to outdo Clouzot’s famously horrific bathtub scene: with a shower scene, no less! And I think Bloch saw this as his ticket to Hollywood: provide the master with a way to beat his rival, and then he could write his own ticket. And as it happened, Bloch spent the rest of his life writing for TV and movies, and then writing about that.

Now, a lot has been written about why Hitchcock went all-out on the shower scene in Psycho, and why Psycho was made in black & white, but I believe, although this is all conjecture on my part, that this is because he wanted to outdo Diabolique’s bathtub scene with such amazing finesse and technical wizardry, not to mention shock value, that people would speak of it so much, that Diabolique’s bathtub scene would become relatively forgotten in its wake. Now it’s also true that it’s in black & white to save money, to play against Willian Castle, etc., but did Alfred Hitchcock really want to compete with William Castle? To me, that’s ridiculous. No, I believe that while Psycho had to be B&W because of the blood and gore in 1960, it was also because Hitchcock wanted to beat Clouzot’s Diabolique on its own terms, and using the same palette, as it were.

You see, I think Hitchcock wanted to beat Diabolique for shock and stuff, in the same type of bathing environment, and do it also in black & white, so nobody could then say: “Well, of course Psycho is better: it’s in color, and Diabolique is in black & white!” And I think I've rarely heard Hitchcock mention the parallel between Diabolique and Psycho because he didn’t want people to compare them, so much as he wanted to nail the coffin lid down on Diabolique’s impact by nudging it out of everyone’s mind as much as possible. In other words, Hitchcock was tired of hearing about the great Diabolique bathtub scene, and he sought to erase it from all future discussion with his even greater Psycho shower scene. And while I haven’t a shred of real proof, this is what I believe to be the case here.

I have read many, many (perhaps hundreds of) film books, but I’ve never seen anyone raise this specific comparison or motivation before (at least not that I recall; although to be fair, most of my movie books are old, and they're mostly about horror movies, and not Hitchcock specifically, so maybe I’ve missed it). But it’s hard for me to believe someone hasn’t made this point before. Anyway, watch both movies for yourself, and I think you’ll agree: the shower scene in Psycho was intentionally created to outdo the bathtub scene in Diabolique. And especially when you consider that Diabolique was made in 1955, Psycho (the novel) was written in 1959, and made into a film in 1960, it’s hard to think it’s not related. Just go watch them and see if you don’t agree.

(BTW: One of my cable movie channels decided to show a whole day marathon of Psycho for Mother’s Day. How sweet, right? I guess they’re trying to say that we should all be so devoted to our mothers as Norman Bates! {Ree! Ree! Ree! Ree!}

Oh, and another related note: The heroine of the movie Diabolique was Henri-Georges Clouzot’s wife, who died at the young age of 46 from: a heart attack (!!): the same thing she died from in the movie Diabolique! To me, that’s as big of a coincidence as if Janet Leigh had been stabbed to death in the shower in real life. Pretty odd, huh? Apparently, it made quite a splash with publicity, but sadly, like any normal man who loves his wife, Clouzot was crushed by the loss of his wife and fell into a despondent depression, making only a small handful of films before his death 17 years later.)

So… Did Hitchcock really outdo Diabolique with Psycho, and which is the better movie? Well, honestly, who am I to tell you something like that? You’ve just got to see them both and make up your own mind. But since you asked nicely, I will tell you that I think they’re both great, perhaps even perfect movies, and I’d say they’re about even. But I dare say Hitchcock managed to knock Diabolique out of the converation for a while, and I’ll bet that was his main personal aim with Psycho, even if he never admitted as much.

Hugely successful men have enormous egos, and they don’t like being bettered at anything. Hitchcock, with the vast resources at his disposal (especially when compared to the relative paucity of resources at Clouzot’s), was pretty much capable of doing whatever he wanted. But ask yourself this: What makes more sense to you? That Hitchcock wanted to see if he could succeed where William Castle was already making a killing with sub-par fare (although I love his stuff: no insult to him you understand!), or that Hitchcock wanted to beat his real rival’s (that is, Henri-Georges Clouzot’s) best movie on its own terms (that being in black & white, and with a sensationalistic horror/mystery/suspense tale), and using the same level of playing field on which to do so?

Well, knowing great men as I do (although not being one myself), I’d have to say it’s pretty clear if you look at the time period we’re talking about. And if I’m right, then Hitchcock would have had to use a TV crew in B&W on a pulp novel story to outdo Diabolique to his own satisfaction. And I seriously doubt he even wanted anyone else to realize what competition he was engaged in. And that’s why he said it was against William Castle: to distract everyone from his real aim, just in case anyone thought he had missed the mark. (Which apparently, some did: Psycho received scathing reviews until it cleaned-up at the box office, whereupon it was reappraised. No such ignominious treatment was ever savaged upon Diabolique.) And I believe this is perhaps why I have never seen my point here mentioned anywhere else: there are a lot of Hitchcock fans out there who would never like to see him bettered in any way whatsoever, so it’s easier to leave this possible link out of their (justifiably) flattering coverage.

The Avengers 2 (?)

The movie of Marvel's The Avengers is doing so well at the box office that I understand they are already working on a sequel. Well, I've got just the thing for The Avengers 2: It's the story of a valiant struggle against tyranny we all can relate to. I really hope they'll consider this story for The Avengers 2.

So this exciting episode begins where The Avengers leaves off. Having defeated Loki, and saving humanity from the impending doom of complete obliteration, The Avengers split up and go their separate ways. Captain America goes back home to the neighborhood where he lives, and with a beaming sense of pride in his rescuing of humanity from certain destruction, he decides to hang an American flag over the door of his garage. Oh, but upon seeing this, the homeowners association tells him it's against their new policy, and he must remove it. So Captain America says he just saved the world and all of their lives, and he's Captain America, so surely he ought to be allowed to fly an American flag on his garage, and also, it wasn't against the rules before. Oh, but the homeowners association says they don't care what he's done, and they refuse to make an exception for him, and they say they had a vote on it recently, which he didn't bother to attend. So Captain America says he was off fighting to save humanity, but the homeowners association says that's no excuse to miss the vote, and if he'd rather go off and save the world than vote in the neighborhood rules meeting, then that's just too bad for him, and they refuse to make an exception for the teensy little American flag on his garage. So Captain America refuses to take it down, so the homeowners association, drunk with power, and empowered to bully anyone they want, calls the police and has Captain America thrown in jail for not taking the small American flag down from his garage.

But now they have gone too far, for Captain America calls The Avengers, and they bust Captain America out of jail, and they team up to fight the fascist homeowners association (which might be led by The Red Skull in disguise or something). So The Avengers beat these jerks within an inch of their lives, destroy all their homes, etc., until they finally give up and relent on the flag prohibition and allow Captain America to fly his little flag on his garage. Oh, but by now it is too late (!), for after all this douche-baggery by the homeowners association, Captain America no longer simply wants to fly a small American flag from his garage, but he now wants to fly an American flag the size of a football field from an enormous sky-scraping pole, covering all of their lots so they can't rebuild their homes. And faced with the very real possibility of another ass-whooping by The Avengers (and especially from The Hulk), they run away with their tails between their legs and buy houses somewhere else, leaving the rest of Captain America's neighborhood free to fly American flags if they so choose. And once more, freedom defeats tyranny and oppression, and good wins out over evil yet again! (Hooray!)

Joke Febreze Advertising Beatles Song

My sister's kitties made a stinky aroma in their litter-box, and it was requested that I spray some Febreze into the room to ameliorate the odor. Well, with my silly advertising-obsessed brain, I began singing something in my head about Febreze, which turned into a version of The Beatles' "Yesterday", but with lyrics altered to be about Febreze. And so here it is, my joke Febreze advertising song:

To the tune of "Yesterday" by The Beatles:

Febreze spray, makes your smelly problems go away,

With one squirt they're gone like yesterday,

Oh I believe in Febreze spray.

Suddenly, the entire house smelled like cat pee,

But with one squirt it's gone completely,

Oh Febreze spray works suddenly.

Why she had to go to the loo she didn't say,

Now she's gone to the john and I long for Febreze spray (ay, ay, ay)...

Febreze spray, makes your stinky problems go away,

With one spritz they'll quickly fade away,

Oh I believe in Febreze spray.

Silly Possible Movie Advertising Tie-Ins & Product Placement

I saw some really bad product placement recently, and it was so bad, it was hilarious. (It was from the movie Source Code, and it was for a particular brand of search engine, where someone has a horribly frustrating experience on a smartphone after using it, and then he dies in an explosion. Can it be worse than that?) But still, they paid for it. And this reminded me of all the wonderfully inane and inappropriate product/movie tie-ins. (Like when Farmers said they were the official insurance of X-Men {?}.) So, with this in mind, I thought I would try to think of a few silly instances of possible product tie-ins for movies we mostly all know. So here’s the list of what I came up with off the top of my head (for the most part):

Martin Archery: the official archery bows & arrows of The Hunger Games. (We make the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune!) or (A bull’s eye, every time!)

Lunesta: the official sleep-aid of A Nightmare on Elm St. (Fall asleep fast on the wings of Lunesta, and die oh so slowly on the blades of Freddy’s glove!)

Energizer Batteries: the official batteries of The Terminator. (The Terminator will never stop killing everyone and chasing you around trying to murder you with Energizer batteries: They keep going and going and going...)

Jägermeister: the official liqueur of Jackass. (Drinking it will bring out the jackass in you: guaranteed!)

Jell-O: the official dessert treat of The Blob. (Eat it before it eats you!)

Helle Knives: the official knives of I Spit on Your Grave. (Hand-built for all the outdoorsman abuse you can dish out!)

Trojan Condoms: the official condoms of Troy. (Even the Greeks enjoy using Trojans for sex!)

Schick: the official razor of V for Vendetta. (Keeps prisoner’s heads shaved like no other blade!)

Memorex: the official audio tape of The Evil Dead. (For sound so lifelike, you’ll ask: “Is it live, is it undead, or is it Memorex?”)

Osteo Bi-Flex: the official Glucosamine/Chondroitin of Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. (Not as spry as you once were back-in-the-day? Take Osteo Bi-Flex and once again you can save the day!)

Elmer’s Glue: the official glue of War Horse. (Elmer’s Glue sponsors a story that will “stick” in your memory forever!)

Gorton’s Fish Sticks: the official fish sticks of Finding Nemo. (You’ll find Nemo and all his friends in every box of Gorton’s fish sticks!)

Henckels Kitchen Cutlery: the official knife of Halloween. (Teen after teen, blades stay wicked sharp!)

Excedrin Migraine: the official migraine medicine of Darren Aronofsky’s π (Pi). (Drill the pain away with the fast-acting strength of Excedrin Migraine!)

STIHL Chain Saws: The official chain saws of Avatar. (Cut down trees fast despite meddling tree-hugging blue meanies and get to that sweet, sweet unobtanium!)

Shell: the official gasoline of The Road Warrior. (If it’s worth killing over, it’s got to be Shell gasoline!)

Rubik’s Cube: the official puzzle box of Hellraiser. (Here’s a puzzle box that damns you to a hell of torment when you can’t solve it!)

K-Y Jelly: the official “slimer” of Ghostbusters. (Get slimed in just the right way with K-Y Jelly!)

Lucid Absinthe: the official absinthe of From Hell. (It’s killer! It’s a dream! It’s “Lucid”!)

Bellevue Psychiatric Ward: the official psychiatric hospital of Sucker Punch. (For that old-style hospitality, it’s got to be Bellevue, established 1799!)

Sea Breeze: the official face cleanser of Waterworld. (Sea Breeze cleans the sea breeze and oil from your pores for that water-clear complexion, every time!)

Hungry-Man: the official frozen dinner of The Hunger Games. (Eat a Hungry-Man: it will keep you full and energized throughout any game of death so you can kill, kill, kill!)

Miracle-Gro: the official plant food of The Happening. (Nothing makes homicidal plants grow faster than Miracle-Gro! It’s like a miracle to killer plants!)

Dramamine: the official motion-sickness medicine of Battleship. (Whether you’re seasick or discombobulated from alien abductions or the concussive force of incoming extraterrestrial weapons, Dramamine sets you right to fight with all your might again! {It also helps with motion sickness from crappy 3D movies.})

Rogaine: the official hair-restorer of The Wolfman. (Get in touch with your inner hairy beast with hair-restoring Rogaine! It brings out the animal in you!)

Spirit Airlines: the official airline of Snakes on a Plane. (You never know just what you’ll encounter on thrilling Spirit Airlines flights!)

Phillips’ Milk of Magnesia: the official laxative of Trainspotting. (You’ll be spotting your trousers on the train if you’re not careful when you take Phillips’ Milk of Magnesia: it just works that well!)

VW Passat “My dad’s going to kill me, dude!” Ad

Here we have a post car-accident scenario, where two teenagers are standing on a sidewalk discussing (or, rather, panicking about) the anticipated repercussions from the damage to the car. But luckily for them, it’s a VW, so they’re all safe and well (and ripe for a killing by dad!). Well, that and the fact that they just dented in the front fender and the bumper a little bit, which would mean you’d be fine in any car. But this is immaterial, since Volkswagens are indestructible life-saving miracles on wheels!

And so then, after this shameless display of wanton car-carnage (that is to say, showing us a car with a dented passenger-side fender, the front bumper hanging down a little bit, and perhaps a broken headlight), this panicked teenage reckless driver says: “My dad’s going to kill me, dude!” (At which point his friend says: “Not if we kill him first!”, and then they go buy a black market gun and conspire to… Oh, I’m kidding: that doesn’t happen!) And then the ad says: “He can only kill you if you’re OK.” (Oh, my God: VW owners are all wanton murderers who kill even their own family members! Aaaaa! But at least they’re admitting it in this commercial, so now we can’t say they haven’t warned us.) But this is a scam and a lie, for this statement is not true at all! His father could kill him so long as he was alive, however barely, and no matter how grievously injured he may have been!

Look, let’s just consider a few scenarios to illustrate this point that this commercial’s ending message is a complete fabrication, shall we? Okay. So let’s say this kid has had a violent collision into a tree or a parking meter or something, and the kid barely survives the accident, but he’s also really drunk, which caused the accident, so he calls his father rather than the police or 911. Well, his father may be so angry upon finding out his car is totaled and his son was drunk driving that he beats his kid to death and makes it look like it was the wreck that did it. So in this case, the kid was not “OK”, but the father was able to kill his son anyway. See?

Okay, so let’s look at another scenario. In this case, the kid has been involved in a head-on drunk-driving accident that has killed people in another car. The driver, the hero reckless driver of this ad, has barely survived the crash and is in the Intensive Care Unit of a local hospital, and the people he killed are the children of his parents’ best friends, or his cousins or something like that. So the father, upon learning the circumstances of the accident, and knowing that, in fact, he forbade his son to drive his car, but this delinquent brat got drunk and stole it anyway, gets so angry that he walks into where his son is being kept in the ICU and secretly turns off the life-support system. See? The kid was barely clinging to life, being almost fatally injured in the accident, but still, even so, and even though this kid is far from being “OK”, his dad was able to kill him anyway. So once again, the blatant inaccuracy of this VW commercial becomes apparent.

And here’s another scenario: Let’s say that this kid, the reckless-driving son, has inherited an enormous sum of money from his grandparents, but that they froze out the kid’s father, because they hate him. And let’s say the kid is not allowed to touch the money until his 25th birthday, but that if something happens to him and he dies before that, the money would go to his father (And this is also why he would be driving his father’s car: because he can’t use the inherited money yet to buy his own car.). And then let’s suppose that his father already hated this kid for always talking back to him, being lazy all the time, flunking out of school because he knows he’s going to inherit a fortune anyway, etc., and he’s constantly rubbing it in to his dad that the money’s all his, and his dad can’t have any, etc. Okay? Okay. So in this situation, his father could snap, and tamper with the brakes or something, and then chase his kid with some big dark SUV with tinted windows, causing the kid to drive really fast, lose control and crash. So then the kid is injured, but his dad can go deliver the coup de grace himself, and kill his son while the kid lies injured and unconscious in the wrecked VW, despite the fact that the car may have protected him somewhat from serious injury. See? So once again, we have a situation where the father can kill his son when he’s not “OK”, so this ad’s message is becoming less and less believable all the time.

Okay, here’s another possibility: Let’s say this kid has killed his father’s new bride, the kid’s stepmother, and his dad is really angry and wants revenge. Well, what he could do is replace the VW’s driver’s-side airbag with a razor-sharp dagger. And then he could beat his son up until he’s unconscious, and then put the kid in the driver’s seat, place a brick on the gas pedal, and send the car into a tree, deploying the dagger/air bag, and kill the kid that way. And since he beat the kid up, he was not “OK”, but the dad could still kill him anyway. So, again, I have proven this VW ad to be completely dishonest in its claims! Ha! Liars!

Okay, I am just joking here, and I will admit this ad makes a good claim, and is actually a good commercial. But the guys who thought this spot up are not nearly murderous, savage, vengeful or criminal enough to recognize that there are tons of opportunities to disprove their message, and that’s just sloppy and shameful. So I suppose the lesson here is, if you’re going to make a safely claim, you really have to go out and try to kill a bunch of people first, just to make sure your claim holds up, or else nobody will take you seriously or believe your message. Or it’s something like that, I guess.

Here’s the car crash commercial:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pGImPcgOTA

Oscar Mayer Selects Buzzkill Wife Ad

Ah, yes: I always find painting responsible mothers as buzzkills is a great ad strategy, especially for foodstuffs, since they do a lot of the food shopping. I mean, yes, technically this ad is realistic in showing family dynamics: if it were up to men, food would always come from a restaurant, and single men almost always seem to live in squalor compared to married men (unless the married men have toddlers; that is a different matter altogether!), because men don’t mind living in dirty, dingy apartments; but women generally don’t like it so much. So yes, this is what things are often like. But…

This ad makes the mom look like the buzzkill disciplinarian, rather than the responsible adult (or at least, a mom might see it that way!), raining on everyone’s parade and generally being a Debbie Downer. No fun for you, says Mrs. Mistreatment Mom! Yeah, someone’s always got to be the villain if you want to be responsible and safe and have sanity and employment in your life. But is it really the best idea to make mom the bad gal when she’s the food shopper, and you’re advertising and selling food products?

But then again, maybe I’m wrong in my reading of this ad. After all, I’m not a woman, and I’m not a mom, either. So maybe they take it as a badge of honor to be smacking down everyone’s bad ideas and to be shown as the resident family buzzkill. And I love the ads, don’t get me wrong! These are fun and funny, and they’re memorable to boot! (Plus, they’re pretty realistic, from my experience!) So great job on these ads from my perspective. It’s just that it seems like mom is being depicted as a real buzzkill here, and I’m not sure they will like that. (But like I said: maybe I’m wrong!)

This is not even the ad I’m referring to, but it’ll do, I guess:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zsiQQIUwHc

No wait; here it is!:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoxZ1LszoJ4