Search the Community

Why hadn't I seen "No Country for Old Men" before ?! As entertainment, this was pretty darned intense, and very, very well-done. As art, I need to think about it some more, but I think there's a lot to extract from this film. I don't like the sudden, undramatic loss of the anti-protagonist, but there must be a reason for this.

I saw these guys open for Trombone Shorty at the 930 Club a year or two ago. They're fun and interesting. This is my favorite (mostly instrumental) piece by them. "Tehuacana" from "Quartz" (2014):

Chef RJ Cooper will open his first independent project, Rogue 24, in the Mount Vernon Square neighborhood of Washington, DC. Projecting a winter, 2011 opening, Rogue 24 will be located in Blagden Alley at 1234 9th St., NW. Executive chef/ owner RJ Cooper, a seasoned veteran chef and James Beard Award winner, is thrilled to bring this landmark restaurant to the developing neighborhood of Mount Vernon Square in Northwest Washington, DC. The 2,600 square- foot restaurant will be tucked away in one of the vacant buildings in Blagden Alley, currently a trendy alley that houses experimental art exhibits. Blagden Alley, located directly west of the Washington, DC Convention Center, is in engaging new epicenter of revitalization. The project leadership of Norman Jamal of Douglas Development has lead a wave of recent development, from multi-million dollar condominiums to established art galleries, as well as a burgeoning social scene of coffee houses, bars and restaurants. This recent rehabilitation makes the neighborhood an excellent locale for the first fine dining restaurant in Blagden Alley. "The space is a perfect fit for the intimate, yet edgy experience of Rogue 24," says Cooper of the Blagden Alley location. "I look forward to joining the current and future independent retailers, artists and residents alike in developing this section of Mount Vernon Square as a distinct destination neighborhood." Celebrating Cooper's stylized urban fine-dining cuisine, Rogue 24 will exclusively offer an interactive 24-course tasting menu. Guests will be served a progression of small dishes that excite the senses, tantalize the palate, and awaken curiosity. The multi-course meal will offer a place at the table where guests can dig deep into a culinary team's philosophy: exploring their suppliers, cooking techniques and sources of inspiration. Rogue 24 will provide an effortless space for the diner to enjoy the imagination of Cooper's menu. The avant-garde beverage program will house a beverage director that will serve as both sommelier and mixologist and will prepare all beverages at a tableside cart, providing innovative pairings that will stimulate the entire experience. 8 beverage (a combination of wine, cocktails and beer) pairings will be offered throughout the 24- course meal. "It is my vision that Rogue 24 will provide an emotional experience. That is what creates memorable meals"”more than the food, the wine, and the service, the overall culture of the restaurant must evoke emotions in its guests." Working alongside Cooper, Harper McClure will serve as chef de cuisine. McClure hails from Atlanta's renowned Bacchanalia restaurant and previously worked with Cooper at Vidalia as his sous chef for nearly five years. The two chefs look forward to reuniting for this groundbreaking new project. ### Situated in the center of the 52-seat dining room, the state-of-the-art kitchen will showcase Cooper's creativity and desire to interact with guests. This architectural design will allow every guest to have an individual chef's table experience. Cooper has enlisted architects Brian Miller of edit and Lauren Winter of Winter Architecture, the famed duo behind Washington, DC's most creative and functional spaces including The Gibson, U Street Music Hall and Dickson Wine Bar, to execute this vision. Rogue 24 will be open for one dinner seating Tuesday-Thursday two dinner seatings Friday and Saturday evenings. The fixed menu price is $130, $140 for non-alcoholic beverage pairings and $170 for alcoholic beverage pairings. About Chef RJ Cooper and The Kid Can Cook, LLC Chef RJ Cooper's Rogue 24 will be the first of several restaurants as part of his and wife Judy Cooper's umbrella restaurant group, The Kid Can Cook, LLC. Rogue 24 will be followed by a variety of projects, including a more casual concept, Pigtails, to open in Washington, DC. Cooper is a seasoned veteran chef who has worked at some of the most prestigious restaurants in the nation, and has served as an integral part of the development in Washington, DC's fine-dining culture. Notable accolades include the prestigious James Beard Award for Best Chef Mid-Atlantic in 2007, as well as recognition from starchefs.com, as the 2006 Rising Star Chef. Cooper also works with the national non-profit organization Share Our Strength®, as a longtime advocate in the fight against childhood hunger. Cooper is the Chair of Share Our Strength's Taste of the Nation's® National Culinary Council, is the founder of Share Our Strength's Chefs on Bikes program and in 2008 was recognized with Share Our Strength's Leadership Award for Chef of the Year. Chef Cooper also serves on the Advisory Board of the startup, DC-based non-profit organization Chefs as Parents that is working to transform DC-public school nutrition programs.

I certainly take no pride in being the only restaurant-based website in the world that has two different threads dealing with Zoophilia, but so it is. Having watched - and, surprisingly, enjoyed - "Dolphin Lover," I took a morbid fascination in dracisk's comment: not because I care about Zoophilia, but because the film "Zoo" supposedly won an award at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival, which is an honor I trust *much* more than an Academy Award - although I can't find out what it won. It was also represented at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival (I understand that many of my film threads are "Academy Award-heavy," but that means very little - I value both of these film festivals more than I do the Academy and its pandering to the masses, and I hope others here do also). I can't believe I'm saying this, but if you wish to watch only one of these films, make it "Dolphin Lover" - first of all, it's only 15 minutes long, but more importantly, it's a *much* better film - the lighting is better, they're not using actors (Michael Minard's "interview" in Zoo is painful to watch, knowing he's just an actor), Dolphin Lover is succinct and articulate, and it's actually enjoyable and fascinating to watch; "Zoo" is, quite frankly, pretty damned boring. And I'm not saying it's boring because it isn't graphic (although the one graphic part was very well-done, in a restrained and elegant manner); I'm saying it's boring because it's *boring* - dull, ponderous, dark, ambiguous, and just hard work to finish. Forgetting the subject matter, I simply did not like the film *as a film* - it was trying too hard to be "artsy," and fell flat on its face. It is now, however, nine years old, and a lot has changed in the past nine years in terms of what we've become numb to - think of "The Walking Dead" as an example. I'm debating whether or not I want to broach the topic of Zoophilia, because that's really a separate thread (yet, I'd prefer not to have three threads on this arcane subject). There are all kinds of profound philosophical implications with Zoophilia: Is it consensual? Is it animal abuse? (I think this is *the* key question if laws are to be enacted.) Is it natural? Is it innate? Is it developed? Is it immoral? Should it be illegal? These are all questions for someone more qualified than I am, but I do have some thoughts - not strong opinions; just thoughts. In the middle ages, i.e., about twenty years ago, most people thought that any type of sex that wasn't between a man and a woman (of the same race) was abnormal - some going so far as to think that unmarried sex was not only immoral, but also abnormal - I'm still trying to figure out how a marriage certificate might lend "normalcy" to a particular type of sex drive. It is clear to me - now - that just because something isn't in the majority, doesn't make it wrong. Most people aren't gay, but *relatively* few people remain who would disparage those who are. I suspect that, twenty years ago - much less five-hundred years ago - gay people would have given *anything* if they could "push a button and no longer be gay" - not because there was anything wrong with it, but because societal pressures were so brutal that their lives were a living hell. I feel *so sorry* for my gay friends who were forced to remain in the closet for fear of being ostracized by society - that type of mentality was cruel and unfair; yet, it's the type of mentality that most people had earlier in *this century*, and I'm talking about the 21st century. In my opinion, it is the internet that helped to open people's eyes, about this, and about many other things. After millennia of cruelty, our society has finally educated itself to the point where being gay is considered to be perfectly natural and moral, and one reason is that it involves two consenting adults, not hurting anyone. In this "age of enlightenment," and I say that with something of a grain of salt, whoever would deny gays and lesbians their basic right to be happy is <insert your own negative epithet here>. You know exactly where I'm going with this, which is exactly why I'm putting in this dividing line: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I put that dividing line there because I'm now going to go from discussing subjects which are perfectly moral, to discussing subjects which are, at best, uncomfortable; and at worst, completely immoral. Just to be perfectly clear, the *only* correlation I'm making with people living out of wedlock, or people who are gay, is the way that society has mistreated them over the centuries. Please do not read anything more into this post, because there's nothing more here. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoophilia. Does the animal consent? I don't know. But I suspect these people would give *anything* not to be in the situation they're in - if they could "push a button and be normal," I'd bet the farm (yes, pun intended, with apologies) that they would. If you watch "Dolphin Lover," you may well feel sorry for the subject of the movie - I certainly did, though I can also easily see how someone else might not. One thing that's clear to me is that the man in that film feels his sexuality is perfectly natural, and not something to be ashamed of. One fetish, compulsion, proclivity - whatever word you prefer - I've *never heard of* is the desire to have sex with inanimate objects (unspeakably macabre things such as necrophilia notwithstanding). Nobody wants to have sex with a coffee table or a daffodil - so is Zoophilia a variant of legitimate sexuality, forever-ingrained in the person's basic psyche? Has it been there since birth? My gut feeling is, perhaps so; or, perhaps not. Even if it is, does that make it right? Not by itself it doesn't: Many people have a natural tendency towards violence, and they are legally obligated to keep that in check; otherwise, they go to jail. So clearly, there are lines which cannot be crossed and explained away by "it's been there since birth." But what are those lines? I've had red hair since birth, some people have been left-handed since birth, and some people have been gay since birth - that makes us all minorities, but it doesn't make any of us immoral. There's nothing wrong with being abnormal, but where do you draw the line of immorality? Is it their fault that they have strong urges to have sex with animals? I just cannot imagine that anyone would wish to have this "condition" (or whatever it is). There are videos - documentaries - on the internet of people bringing elephants to orgasm for the purposes of insemination - how different is that? I must stress that I do not have any answers, and honestly, if I never think of this subject again, that would be perfectly fine with me. Pedophilia. This seems about as clear-cut to me as it can possibly be: There is absolutely no consent given, and it must be considered a "crime" or whatever you want to call it. Whatever you want to call it, it must be stopped, immediately and decisively, by any means necessary - if I had caught someone in the act of abusing my son, I probably would have killed them. That said, I do think pedophilia is an uncontrollable compulsion, urge, drive - whatever the term is - and that these people are mentally ill. They need help more than they need punishment, and I honestly believe that voluntary castration should enter into the discussion, because "once a pedophile, always a pedophile" ... that's how I see it until I'm convinced otherwise. For a long time now - maybe a decade - I've felt that pedophilia is often an illness, perhaps even existing since birth. Yes, pedophiles must be locked up - but in my eyes, they need to be locked up not "to punish them"; rather, to get them off the streets at all costs because it is too difficult to control sexual urges, and the consequences of *not* controlling them are just too severe. Castration must be discussed as a potential option to the convicted pedophile, rather than only locking them up for twenty years, and having them do the exact same thing as soon as they walk out of jail, because I don't think they can be "rehabilitated" or "taught a lesson." If that constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," I would personally rather be surgically castrated than to spend the rest of my life in prison - others may feel differently, I don't know. I took a big chance writing this post, and I beseech people to read it for what it is: a way to get things out in the open, rather than burying our heads in the sand, and pretending they don't exist - intelligent discourse is the only way to move forward. Apr 25, 2007 - "Into the Shadowy World of Sex with Animals" by Manohla Dargis on nytimes.com "Zoo" on rottentomatoes.com --- Summary: All this philosophical crap aside, this movie, as a movie, is terrible - good luck finishing it: It's one of the worst films I've seen in a long, long time. If you're a masochist, you can find the entire thing here on YouTube. I'll also add that I've tried to be as non-judgmental as possible in writing this, as it's the only way I could suffer through it.

A couple of us are doing an Ingmar Bergman retrospective, and will be starting with his earliest work, "Torment" (also known as "Frenzy" and "Hets," 1944), then working forward towards his later works, in order. If anyone wants to join in the discussion, please feel free. The discussions are here: 1944 ¨Torment¨ (aka ¨Hets" and ¨Frenzy¨) 1946 ¨Crisis¨ (aka ¨Kris¨) The only legitimate place I've found Torment is on Hulu Plus which offers a free week, followed by $7.99 a month. There are probably foreign websites that offer it as well, but I'm taking the legitimate route. However you view it, please feel free to share your thoughts (each movie will get its own thread). This is a good chance to familiarize yourself with one of the greatest directors in history, and it can be done at your leisure. Well, why not? Note that Bergman didn't directly direct (I think that's a phrase) Torment, but it's regarded as his first directorial work, and he wrote the screenplay as well. Berman was born in Uppsala, Sweden in 1918: and passed away in Fí¥rö, Sweeden in 2007. Fí¥rö is a tiny island off a slightly larger island called Gotland, itself off the coast of southeast Sweden - it is, needless to say, quite remote:

Dakota Staton was a jazz/pop diva who never made it really big, but was important within her orbit. "The Late, Late Show" in 1957 was her first and biggest success, but she recorded lots of wonderful stuff afterwards, such as the remarkable album "Madame Foo-Foo" with the terrific Hammond organ player Groove Holmes in 1972, featuring the song "Deep in a Dream". I used to have almost all her stuff on vinyl, but that's all gone now. Sigh.

This is a difficult, 1:45, indie-minded historical drama with very little to like about it. With such elite names as Josef Breuer, Sigmund Freud, and Friedrich Nietzsche, how do you go wrong telling about their intersection? The answer is: In a lot of ways. This movie is ponderous, disjoint, clearly made to "feel" intelligent (for the NPR crowd?), but there's absolutely no greatness to be found, either in the script, or in the acting. Please, consider this a call for disagreement. I watched this film over several days, and I'll be the first to admit that I might be missing something, but all I smell is D-U-L-L. I have written up to here so far while having watched 1:12 of the film, and having :45 to go. I cannot imagine the last 45 minutes saving this grotesque little obligation, but who knows? With (Academy Award Winning) Ben Cross co-starring in it, I wouldn't think "When Nietzsche Wept" was part of a doctorate program (the production values seem much too costly for such a thing), so somewhere, someone considered this a worthy piece of art. (I have resisted, with all my might, looking at any reviews for "When Nietzsche Wept" until now, and will continue to do so until the end of the film - easier said than done, knowing you might be totally wrong.) If the dialogue between Breuer and Nietzsche (or, for that matter, Breuer and Freud) was authentic, that would explain this needless, poorly written script, but we have no proof that it is, at least none that I know of. "When Nietzsche Wept" is a film that seems like it was made by doctoral students with textbook talent, but without real-life talent, and there's just nothing to take away from it. I learned precious little about these characters, and - sadly - precious little about their relationships with one another. If I couldn't extract that from the film, what was there to extract? Sometimes I wonder if hyper-educated people feel a sort of "need" to watch every film like this they can get their hands on because they might "miss something important" if they don't. Well, I can save you the trouble: the only thing you'll learn from this is that Breuer was Freud's friend and mentor, and that Breuer also knew Nietzsche - this all took place in Vienna in 1882, along with a somewhat gratuitous reenactment of Nietzsche's "God is dead" lecture to a near-empty classroom. Those little tidbits are worth knowing, and I've just saved you the trouble of watching the film. Would someone else please watch "When Nietzsche Wept" and tell me if I've gone astray? Because now it's time for me to walk out onto a limb, and say that I suspect critics didn't like this movie, for a multitude of reasons. Cheers, Rocks

I just started watching this movie (I am literally not even finished with the opening credits). However, I just noticed something fascinating that I wonder if anyone else has ever noticed before, and I'll bet the answer is no. When the opening credits roll, there are slow-motion, "Apocalypse Now"-type scenes occurring in the background. Music begins playing, and right before the camera focuses on an Iraqi woman holding up a sign that says, "Thank you, U.S.A.," two chords play in thirds: C-minor (C, Eb, G), then D-major (D, F#, A), and the moment I heard them, I said to myself, 'those chords are from "A Clockwork Orange'" because they are - during the opening credits, immediately before cutting to that first, shocking close-up of Alex with his false eyelash (the c-minor cord is in the first inversion in Clockwork Orange) - and in both films, they're played using a futuristic, "synthesized" sound. C-minor followed by D-major is not a common chord progression, and is disturbing enough to grab your attention. I went to the Wikipedia entry for No End In Sight, and then linked directly to Roger Ebert's review. Take a look at the very first sentence in Roger Ebert's review: "Remember the scene in "A Clockwork Orange" where Alex has his eyes clamped open and is forced to watch a movie?" I propose that, regardless of what else is in this film - and at this time, I have *no* idea if this is going to be right-wing propaganda, left-wing propaganda, or something else - but I propose that those two chords were intentionally designed to evoke subliminal imagery, and that Ebert picked up on it, most likely subconsciously. So by the time the movie even starts, you have images of a dystopian government running through your head. And it was so subtle that it was masterful (they abandon the third, resolving, g-minor chord that's in "A Clockwork Orange" and move onto another theme). I happen to have perfect pitch, and can tell that these are virtually the same notes in both movies. But what about Roger Ebert - was he psychologically manipulated? I say yes, and that none of this is coincidence - but I guess we'll never know. Were they going after Ebert in particular? He did list "Apocalypse Now" as one of his Ten Greatest Movies Of All Time .... And there's more. Immediately after these chords, the music picks up into a more "action-adventure" theme juxtaposed with a close-up of President G W Bush against the red, white, and blue. Then a bit later, the same two c-minor, d-major chords in a slightly different inversion (the exact same inversion that's in "A Clockwork Orange"), immediately followed by an even perkier rendition of the "action-adventure" theme juxtaposed with a close-up of Secretary of State Rumsfeld. Regardless of what follows in this documentary, the tone has been set. To summarize: In the opening credits of "A Clockwork Orange," you have c-minor, d-major, cut to a close-up of Alex (:42 second mark in this video) In the opening credits of "No End In Sight," you have c-minor, d-major, cut to a close-up of G W Bush Followed by c-minor, d-major, cut to a close-up of Rumsfeld (1:40:12 countdown-second mark on Netflix, but to pick up the connection, you really need to listen to the entire opening) [Please note: despite me naming political figures in this post, this is not a political thread; it's about the movie itself - let's keep it that way, please. We've all gotten our digs in before now.]