On Humility, or an Open Letter to Mo'Nique

Dear Mo'Nique:

I heard about your recent refusal to appear at all these award shows coming up, even though you are nominated.

http://goldderby.latimes.com/

You stomp and scream and cry, demanding that you didn't get paid enough for the film, and if you have to traipse to all these things, you wanna get paid for it. And you know, it's an understandable request.

But let me just school you for a minute in the way things work in Hollywood, since you don't really seem to get it. And, in the spirit of your character in Precious (and no, I'm not adding the damn pretentious title after it), let me be straight-up and honest about it. Brutally honest.

Here's what it is. You may think, as an actress, that the goal is the work, to get a deeply moving role, blah blah. That may be true. However, the reality is also that in the overall scheme of things, NOTHING and I mean NOTHING, that you do: no talk show, no other role, no stage work, no nothing will help your career and image in the industry as much as winning an Academy Award.

This should be obvious, apparently it isn't to you.

Every time after that, in every ad, every magazine article, every everything, it's going to say: Oscar-winning actress Mo'Nique in big, bold letters. Just let that sink into your brain for awhile.

Because here's the thing. Here's the reason I'm writing this letter to you. THAT IS within your grasp. Right now, with this role in Precious, you nearly have the gold plate inscribed. I promise you.

BUT to get from here to there, there are a lot of steps along the way. And tantrumy diva behaviour might hold up, even for this role. Might. Right now, from where I stand, it looks like you're on a crash course to self-destruction.

So maybe you don't really get the Hollywood scene. Trust me with this too, this is the closest you are ever gonna get to this gold. People have a once-in-a-lifetime shot at this usually, and this is yours. So listen well.

You may've previously played the actress game, which involves auditioning, and getting roles, and doing those roles. Etc. This awards-show circuit is a whole other side of the Hollywood machinery.

Here is how it is properly played, for those skilled and in the know. And you can choose to ignore this advice, but trust me, sister, this right now is your shot. I'm saving you years of learning.

With a powerhouse role like this, the award accolades start coming in early. You get nominated at everything from the New York Critics Circle to the Golden Globes, if you're lucky. The BAFTAs. The LA Critics. And the more of these you choose to go to, and smile and nod, and accept your award, the more a part of the industry you will appear. Those IN the industry will say to themselves, she's not a crazy diva actress. She's a respected actress and we want to give her an Oscar for that, because she is playing our game. And further down the line, they will HIRE you because they remember that you were the one winning all the awards.

All those uphill battles you've been fighting as an actress go away because you become a known quantity in their minds. Now, you may jump up and down, screaming about what a great actress you already are, and while that may be true, Terrence Howard had it exactly right. You may have won over your friends, family and fans. Those aren't the people who get you JOBS.

Right now, just the bad press you have already have about this matter may have derailed any respect you might've had in the industry (talk show be damned; this fiasco is the PR version of Britney shaving her head). It may just be too late. I don't think so. I think you still have time to salvage it, if you suck it up and start acting with some humility going forward.

Here's what you have to do, immediately, if not sooner. Get your publicist all over the Internet putting out this fire. Saying instead, Oh no, Mo'Nique would love to appear at your awards event. Go there, say not one word about money, smile, nod, pick up your award. Rinse, repeat. Over and over. Like it's one of those magic walkways they have at airports. The momentum in place will just push you through it.

And if you keep doing it, I promise you, there is an Oscar at the other end. Did you know that an actress's fee goes up significantly if she has won an Oscar? And the FIRST role you do after winning an Oscar you can pretty much cherry pick? That is there waiting for you.

Having lots of money may be your goal. It may be your only goal. You may not care about "the art." You may not care about the respect of your peers. But if you do, SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP right now, and do this. Without complaint. Without requests for additional payment. The payment comes in the roles you get later. And the doors that will be opened for you. When in the future, it's between you and another actress for a role, you'll ALWAYS have the "well, she won an Oscar" card to play.

You seem like a smart woman, Mo'Nique. Fix this PR travesty right now. Do the awards circuit. And if, for whatever reason, you choose not to, I sure hope that Academy voters remember Samantha Morton's name as an alternative. At least SHE gets it.

CONSTANCE AMIOT Rendezvous de novembre

Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Je te jure que le temps les renverse
Il emporte avec lui les plus belles images
Dévalise les saisons comme on tourne les pages

J’aimerais récolter les plus belles histoires
En plaquant des accords sur le manche de ma guitare
Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

Pourquoi traduire les mots les plus tendres
Toucher du bois quand on manque de bol
Pour adoucir le mois de novembre
Les volets qui claquent et les détails qui clochent

Et le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile

J’aimerais emprunter le chemin des rêveurs
Ajuster mes adieux à des « au revoir »
A bientôt rendez-vous aux couleurs de l’automne
Essayons d’être heureux du moins jusqu’à ce soir

Mais le temps qui de temps en temps oui le temps qui brille
Comme une étoile
Le temps qui de temps en temps, le temps qui brille
Oui le temps qui de temps en temps, oui le temps qui brille (x3)

Les jours s’abritent dans les manteaux d’hiver
Et dispersent dans le vent, tout ce qui dure
Pourquoi faut-il que l’on fasse des promesses
Ceux qui s’endorment comme des toiles accrochées sur les murs

MICHELLE'S TRANSLATION (one found online is inaccurate)

NOVEMBER RENDEZVOUS
Why is it that we make promises ?
I swear that time reverses itself
It carries with it the most beautiful images
Robs the seasons as you turn the pages

I would like to gather the best stories
By plating agreements on the neck of my guitar
But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

Why translate the most tender words?
Touch wood when you miss the bowl
To soften the month of November
The shutters banging and details that are wrong

And time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star

I would like to borrow the path of dreamers
Adjust my farewells to a "goodbye"
Soon return to the colors of autumn
Try to be happy at least until tonight

But time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Like a star
Time, from time to time, yes time that shines
Yes, time, from time to time, yes time that shines (x3)

The days shelter themselves in the coats of winter
And disperse in the wind all that lasts
Why is it that we make promises
To those who sleep like fabrics hung on walls ?

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Are We Addicted To Giving Our Own Opinions

Posted using ShareThis

Google Messes Things Up Good

Here is the original link which prompted this story:

http://www.musicpowernetwork.com/MusicResources/GoogleMusic/tabid/111/Default.aspx

I don't know if you go searching through music lyrics the way I do (I use Google to search a music lyric at least every day, and usually multiple times in a day). What is it I prefer to get in my search? First, a lyric that has the right words, that's key.

But after that, all I want to do is go there, copy the lyric and post it in whatever it is I'm working on. Simple cut and paste. I don't sell it or repurpose it or do anything nefarious with it.

Increasingly (I've been doing this for at least five years now with regularlity), I find websites that will show you the lyrics, but they have something blocking the text so that you can't copy it (ie, it's useless to me). metrolyrics.com is one example. I used them all the time before. Now they are one of my last choices. So that was annoying.

Then, they increasingly started, more and more putting ads on the pages. Also annoying, but you could ignore them. Until the ads started having music videos in them, which started playing when you opened the page. Beyond annoying.

I want a simple experience: lyrics, copy, paste, done. No ads, no frills, no frou-frou nonsense. Don't want links to an artist's page (though if that helps me get truer lyrics, that's great). But I'm not looking to buy their music. I have other venues for that if I want to do that. All I want is bloody lyrics. That's all.

And I have noticed what this article talks about. First, it was things like last dot fm and Rhapsody creeping in. Sure you might be able to eventually get to the lyrics, but you have to subscribe and listen to the record first. Um, no.

There already were sites that I avoided because they were full of popups and did crazy things to my browser, even crashing it. I would learn to go only to the reliable sites (lyricstime dot com and sing365 are still pretty good) for that purpose. But increasingly, the wholle first page or even couple pages of searches are full of CRAP. Amazon and other music sites. All I want is LYRICS.

Do you get this people? If I don't get that, I go somewhere else for it. I don't wade through ads, or buy stuff just cause it's there. I go somewhere where my experience is hassle-free. Google really needs to learn this. And ESPECIALLY if none of the monies made here are going to the artist anyway. Can someone just do a lyrics site that doesn't bombard you with crap?

Top 10 Best Picture predictions for Oscar

BEST PICTURE

1. The Messenger

2. Up

3. Capitalism, A Love Story

4. An Education

5. The Hurt Locker

6. Bright Star

7. Where the Wild Things Are

8. Julie & Julia

9. Coco Before Chanel

10. The Damned United

New Noise conference overview

October 8-10, 2009

The first annual New Noise conference took place in lovely Santa Barbara this past week (October 8-10). I was lucky enough to win all-access passes (thank you, Twitter and @lalawag!) so I went to everything on the schedule that I could squeeze in. This meant conferences by day, lots and lots of bands by night.

The wondrous Michael Franti and Spearhead kicked off the festivities on Thursday night, but I didn't arrive until Friday morning. Sadly, this meant I also missed Murs.

Let's address each part separately, and I'll give you an overview, in case you weren't there, or hadn't even heard about it, and wonder why you should go next year. Basically, because SXSW has become a zoo, and for those of us in California, is far away anyway. New Noise is sort of like a mini version of the music portion of SXSW.

The biggest highlight was the caliber of speakers: people top in their field, capped by the keynote from Pandora founder, Tim Westergren. It was pretty universally looked upon as the best session of the two days.

But along the way, we were treated to people from all aspects of the music industry: A&R execs, suits from labels, people working with greening the musical landscape, musicians, software developers, lawyers, managers, and Internet entrepreneuers. All of them provided their take on where we are at during this moment in music history.

Essentially, the gist of the conference sessions was this: The big four music companies are overly bureaucratic and useless; smaller niche music publishers are the hot item of the day; terrestrial radio is dead, but Internet radio is alive and thriving.

The ones with the power now, in case no one had noticed: the consumers and the musicians themselves. Musicians are now compelled to become even greater musical marketers than ever before, and if they do, they will be hugely compensated (as long as they are good).

The old routines of being a band, playing in clubs, getting noticed by someone, getting groomed and signed to a label, having the label package and promote you (and take nearly all of your royalties, thank you very much) have happily gone. The labels would then push your product to targeted radio stations, who would play it into nauseating boredom (OK, that last editorialism was mine), and you would have a fantastic hit on your hands.

The new model is to promote your band everywhere: MySpace, Facebook, Twitter, cyberspace at large. If you attract the attention of an A&R rep (yes, they exist and are seeking talent), you might get directed to a label which specializes in your type of music. Or they might counsel you to stay on your own. (Having your music on iTunes is a good thing, but having it, even for free, on your own website is better, because you get to keep the email of the customer and retarget them.)

In music, as in many areas of entertainment, it's about putting together, packaging and marketing your "brand." Building a customer fan base, who tends to be fiercely loyal and loves to give you money, and keeping those fans happy.

You can seek out "airplay" anywhere you choose: of course, Internet radio is still popular, but there are also podcasts, UStream, YouTube, fan sites, etc. The niche areas have taken the place of radio as far as breaking artists, according to panelists, including some who worked at major stations in major markets.

The "new DJ" has become the music supervisor at a TV production company. If you get your song on one of those shows, you can make bank. In fact, the music jackpot today is no longer getting on a major radio station in a major market, but rather, getting "an iTunes commercial and at the end of Grey's Anatomy." I hear The Submarines (who've had both) out there smiling, somewhere.

In short, the future looks great for pretty much everyone, except the major labels and terrestrial radio. The artists are reaching more fans more directly. The A&R people are signing more people they are excited about. The consumers get many more choices in as many ways as they can handle them. And lots of people are thinking of ways to get that new music to you more enticingly (hopefully with ads attached somehow).

What does the future look like? Well, no one knows really. The people on the two Green panels (promoters on one, musicians on another) believe that working a low-carbon footprint into every concert is very much on the horizon (apparently R&B and hip hop artists are dragging their feet the most). Some would like to see recycling worked into every aspect of a concert tour, as the norm, rather than the exception. Many on the panels see this as doable in the near future.

"Every artist when given a choice: do you want to recycle? will say yes," said Chris Baumgartner of MusicMatters.

One person stated that they thought at least one of the four majors would also die within the next year. Another stated that they thought Billboard magazine would go out of business by year's end (probably an easy call too). One person stated it most succinctly: "The [majors] were so busy looking for the 'next big thing,' they neglected the one that came along: the Internet. They were blindsided by it. They didn't expect that at all. They are still trying to catch up, but it's too late." One called them "dinosaurs." Another said that bureaucratic music labels move to slowly (in this age of Now) to be effective at all.

The genie's out of the bottle, in short. Consumers now have the power, and they like it. Musicians have more money, and they like it. Radio's structured playlist system, where the real DJs don't even get to pick the music, is dead. It has been replaced by choice-filled Internet radio: both former terrestrial versions gone Internet and up-and-comers with spiffy software like Pandora, Blip and last.fm. What is not to like about all these things?

All of these are things that most of us knew, but still, it was good to hear it over and over from so many different aspects of the business. And if you were a musician, you might have walked in there, thinking that the best path would be to try to get signed to a major and get your music into the hands of a radio DJ. You would've walked out of there realizing that instead you need to fine tune your message, your method of reaching fans, even giving music away to do so, and that getting signed anywhere might not be the best way for you to make money, unless it's with a specialty label who features your type of band. As always, the most important thing is to be a great musician with something to say, and an innovative way to say it. Good luck!

NEXT UP: The music at New Noise

Kanye's Bit Was Staged, Or Who Were They Kidding?

Let's look at the facts for a minute here.

Kanye West gets up on stage and interrupts an acceptance speech at the MTV Video Music Awards by Taylor Swift.

The audience boos, the country is in an uproar (it's all Twitter can talk about for awhile). There are rumors of him "being drunk" (as if that makes it ok or understandable).

The next day, everyone apologizes to everyone, and we go on.

Except this. It was fake. And here's why.

Jay Leno, whom NBC is banking a heck of a lot on with his new 10 pm gig, just happens to have his first show right after the VMAs. Funny. His guest is Kanye West. Huge ratings.

Two days later, Taylor Swift is on The View, also talking about the VMA debacle. Also huge ratings.

Except this. BOTH guests were booked prior to the VMAs.

And, further, both guests are clients of agency William Morris Endeavor (WME) Entertainment. Coincidence? I think not.

Remember that Bruno/Eminem debacle, which later turned out to be staged? Both of them, also clients of WME.

Now here's the thing.

Do these people actually think this kind of media manipulation works? Obviously they do. They did it with Bruno/Eminem and came back for more for the VMAs.

They don't, apparently, realize that we are in a different age now. The age of transparency. Where a person is accountable for their actions. Further, where things can be checked with a few keystrokes.

The end result of all of this, to my eyes, is that everyone looks bad.

Eminem. Bruno. Kanye. Taylor Swift.

But most especially the charlatans at William Morris Endeavor, who use these old school tricks when we are in new times. Shame on you!

Growing Twitter like a rosebush

My roommate, a dear, sweet woman, is far more social than me. But yet again today, we had another discussion about "I don't get this Twitter thing." I've been trying to get her to thrive on Twitter the way I do, but she doesn't even understand the basic concept of it. Given how social and gregarious she is in first life (far more than me), this kinda blows my mind.

So while we were talking about it, a concept I've been playing with came to the forefront.

I have two Twitter accounts, both packed full with 2000 people that I'm following. Initially I considered just filling up an account with 2000 and moving on to the next one, to whatever suited my needs. But this has proved to be impractical. To say nothing of the confusion, if someone is on one list and not the other; or mistakenly on both. So, trust me, multiple accounts really doesn't work, unless one is for business, one for pleasure, which is how I tried to structure them initially.

But what I found, in using them, is that I gravitated much more to the personal one (@michebella), only checking the business one (@michebel) on weekends or through my iPhone. The personal one, I use daily.

And also, and I was trying to explain all this to my roommate today, the personal one I care for like a rosebush. I am constantly pruning and caring for it. I am strictly vigilant about those that I'm following. When I first started (both accounts), I just ran helter skelter, adding as many folks as I could. I wanted to get up to that 2000 number, thinking that was the point, after all.

It isn't.

Sure you want to have lots of followers, and usually having 2000 will get you close to 2000 following you. On my personal account, I currently have 1400 following me, and can't seem to get it past that number. Oddly, on my business account, I quickly added the 2000 and got over 2000 following me. (I still don't understand that.)

It all started this morning with a discussion of Mafia Wars, and why I think it's rude to one's Twitter stream. My roommate's retort was: "Well, they are all just writing about what they had for breakfast anyway, what difference does it make?" (The usual thing from those who aren't really using Twitter the right way.) But it made me think of my business account, and how in a recent perusal, I had the same frustration that my roommate was having.

The reason I wanted to write this column is because I think this is really key. Part of really GETTING Twitter, I think, is making your Twitter stream work for you. Meaning getting value, as much as possible anyway, out of each and every person you're following.

People bounce others for many reasons. It could be that they are always talking about sports and you don't care about that. Or they fall on the opposite side of the political spectrum than you. The important, even KEY, thing here is that you don't sit there, frustrated, as my roommate does, and bemoan, oh this is stupid. You bounce them. And add someone who does provide value to you.

I'm not saying that every little nugget I put out there in the Twitter stream is golden. Or that anyone's is, for that matter. But it really is like buildng a friendship. You take the good with the bad, and hope that overall, it's a good experience.

I feel very strongly that everyone should have at least 100 people they are following, because if not, you get the same crap from the same people over and over. No one is that interesting.

But once you get up toward 250+, you get more of the concept of a stream, an organic flow of ideas and thoughts. It's easy to scroll past those that don't interest you. Less than that, you're just left thinking that it's all stupid.

Look at it this way. You have the whole world in front of you, like one huge dinner party. Who are you going to talk to? and why? whose advice are you going to seek out? who do you want hanging around just cause they have a cute turn of phrase? And if you're now saying, well, Michelle, I don't KNOW the whole world, I have no idea! This is what Follow Fridays are for.

Those who understand and stay on Twitter, regularly participate in Follow Fridays. Many have explained it better than me, but in short, you have people you value on your list. On Friday, they will tell you who they have on their list that they really like (for whatever reason). So add them.

Or at least check them out and then add them. This is how your list can grow every week, organically, with people you find interesting. Cause very likely those you find interesting will have interesting friends too.

But don't SETTLE for a crappy list and just moan about it. If people are swearing too much, or flashing too much nudity, or whatever you hot buttons are: unfollow them.

When I settle down to my Twitter stream, it is a pleasant blissful place. I get inspired, enlightened, calmed. I learn things I don't know. I hear about the latest news. I hear what others think about the latest news. Some friends drop songs off that they like.

Here's the thing. Just like any good party, you don't have to linger on someone talking about their foot surgery or their mom's constipation. You go on to the next one, or, if that's all they talk about, you unfollow them.

It's your Twitter stream. Make it grow, make it flower, make it work for you. That, I think, is what those masses leaving Twitter don't get. They expect it POOF! to be this amazing thing. You really have to work at making it amazing. But once you do, you won't want to go back to just watching crap scroll by, I promise you.

Now if I could only convince my dear roommate of this. Sigh. I'll keep you posted.

COCO BEFORE CHANEL (in French with subtitles)

Most people, if asked to describe the clothes of Chanel, would use adjectives like clean, classic, elegant. If asked to describe the person of Coco Chanel, if they even knew the answer, they might use adjectives like austere, gruff, reserved. Actress Audrey Tautou, who portrays her in this new movie, "Coco Before Chanel," spoke afterwards about her. She described the poignant final scene as the moment when Chanel shut down everything that came before and became the revered icon we all came to know. The one who changed fashion forever, arguably more than any other person.

So what was "Coco" (real name Gabrielle "Bonheur," aka "Happiness, quite ironic) really like? Before the House of Chanel? And why should we care about that?

What I really found fascinating about the film is how although it's definitely stuck in its time (the late 1890s and early 20th Century), Coco Chanel herself is quite clearly a woman ahead of her time. How does a visionary get from an impossible situation to creator of an empire? One stitch at a time, apparently.

She just kept doing what she did, and one thing led to another.

The film begins with Coco and her sister being deposited at an orphanage, their father not looking back. How they made their way as best they could: singing in cabarets, finding men to latch onto, whatever they could.

What really remains as a throughline of Chanel's character, though, is how determined she is to land on her feet. And how though there really wasn't a career for women doing what she did best, she created it.

All of that, perhaps, one would expect from a movie about Coco before Chanel. What is really unexpected, and beautiful to see, is the love story.

Belgian actor Benoit Poelvoorde is wonderful as the first strong man in her life. But the lingering love story between Tautou's character and American Alessandro Nivola is charming and engaging to watch. For me, that was the best chunk of this movie.

There have been many movies made about the Coco Chanel we knew. When have we ever seen her in love? And with a lover who realizes and appreciates who she is, and finally sets her in the right direction? It was really beautiful.

Having seen many of the previous Chanel movies, this movie finally left me with a realization of who this woman really was, and why she was the way she was. Well worth a watch.

The Future of Radio...Really?

I just had a little dustup in the Twittersphere about the future of radio.

Aw, let me backtrack a little bit. Anyone who knows me and listens to my podcasts knows how much I love radio. I love radio passionately. I still fall asleep with my iPhone next to my ear, playing my favorite Internet radio station, much as I did with my little red transistor listening to CKLW back eons ago.

And anyone who knows me knows that I was laid off from my beloved newspaper job recently. I am, and have been all my life, a media maven. Gobbling up as voraciously as I could all forms of media: TV, radio, newspapers, magazines. Constantly they filled my little life. They were what I cared most about.

So it is with great sadness that I say again here, as I've said many times in my blog, my podcast, on my Facebook page, and on Twitter, that I think media, at least old school media that we used to know, is DEAD.

Newspapers are dead. Magazines are dead. Radio is dead. TV is on its last legs, and is trying to rejigger itself to the new medium which lives and has swallowed all of them whole: the Internet.

That is my stance, and my belief. Further, I believe that any of us who used to be in media should get our relative acts together and reappropriate them to the Internet or face our own destruction. There is no retooling of the old stuff to make it work. It's broken, it's gone. Let's all move on, shall we?

So, I came across this post from someone in media whom I did respect. Someone on Twitter who always posts enlightening, interesting posts (whom I will not name here). He was directing us to another guy, an old-school radio guy, who was proclaiming "The Future of Radio." In the dustup that ensued, the respected guy offered, "No, really. Just so you know, he's a new media evangelist."

hahahahahaha

And that means that he gets paid big bucks for offering his opinion on where we are at and where we are going? Really? Really now?

I checked out the man's blurb for this "Future of Radio" webinar. Here is the statement which stopped me dead in my tracks, openly mocking everything else that came after: "designing the format clock to maximum advantage." Really? That's what the future of radio involves? Continuing to perpetuate the scourge of radio foisted upon us in the 70s, the "format"? The one where you pick from A, and B, and C, to come up with a repetitive mix that is pleasurable to listeners? Really?

Does this man, this "new media evangelist" (oh, excuse me, "RAB Certified Digital Marketing Consultant" (choke, cough)) even own an iPod? And is the format-churning radio really relevant for anyone anymore? Are my facts wrong, or has radio been bleeding listeners like newspapers have been bleeding readers? Even the current format-oriented radio stations? Much less ones out there in the "future."

Boys and girls, the horse has left the barn. It's moved on to other things. And if I didn't have friends I care about programming radio stations, I wouldn't even be listening to the Internet radio I listen to now, I'd be surfing on Blip.fm and Pandora and any number of alternate music sources. To say nothing of the vast horizon of music-oriented podcasts out there.

The new media evangelist goes further to talk about "brand loyalty." Really? There is brand loyalty to old-school prepackaged radio stations? Hm. Not in my world. I cannot imagine any way you could "redesign the format clock" to make it work in my world.

The last terrestrial radio station I listened to, and loved, was LA's Indie 103.1 (and now listen to in its Internet format). One thing not having it around has made me really realize is that the whole premise that radio today is based upon: repetition to create "hits" is annoying as hell. I really don't wanna hear a song six times in one day. No matter the song, no matter how much I like it. For that matter, I don't want to hear it three times in one day. Once a day is just fine. Once a week is even better.

That's my preferred listening mode these days. I would venture to bet that most people follow along these lines. Having CDs in their car to listen to, walking around with their iPods or Zunes. Maybe radio plays in the background at a party.

It just kills me that someone gets big bucks for telling people how to put a finger in a dyke that's already burst. And furthermore, the man's picture on the promo piece is SKEWED. Sheesh. Some evangelist. Can't even get his Photoshop right.

What do you think?

Julie and Julia Sings

The Julia Child that I remember was the stumbling over, too drunk version of herself that was almost a caricature. So it is good to remember, instead, her early days. The days that made her what she is/was: a star in the cooking pantheon.

"Julie and Julia" is really the story of the writer, Julie Powell (who wrote the book on which this movie was based). But it is Julia Child who is the fascinating one, and played by Meryl Streep (arguably our best living actress), those moments are riveting.

Meryl Streep is just (again) astonishing. Child had a very peculiar cadence to her voice, and Streep's vaunted facility for accents captures every nuance. But it's more than that. It's the way she holds her head, the way she walks. The way she seems like such a huge presence on screen (Child was larger and taller). And deep, deep in her characterization, there is a passion, a love that perhaps didn't appear so much in the Child of late that we knew.

This Julia Child loves Paris. Loves France. Loves French cooking. Loves her husband. It was a wondrous time in her life, and every single second of it was riveting to me.

Ann Roth's costumes are simply superb. Nora Ephron's direction really serves the story.

I didn't think it possible, but you are truly drawn into both women's stories. Amy Adams is more engaging and fetching than she has been in awhile. Supporting characters like the always amazing Jane Lynch, and Mary Lynn Rajskub from 24, make this a very fun movie to watch.

You probably will want to go out to eat afterwards, though, so have a good French restaurant lined up.

Funny People Not Funny

You hear the name Judd Apatow, most likely you're recalling at least one of the funny movies he's responsible for. I mean, sure Knocked Up, while being funny, was also a treatise on the vast disparity between men and women sometimes. But by and large, it was funny. That's what one comes to expect from him.

Funny People was distinctly not funny.

That said, it was one of the most real and poignant commentaries on the state of Hollywood of any movie out there. It really left me thinking deeply afterwards (as Knocked Up did as well). This is the sign of a great movie. I just wish it wasn't so disturbing.

Adam Sandler, who shows he can really touch those dramatic heartstrings, and that he's maybe lived a few of these moments himself, stars as the super famous comedian lead. You see him walk through his day: signing autographs, taking pictures with fans. Then, finding out he's dying.

You see him chewing on this information as he walks through his humongous gilt laden castle of a home. It is the soul of the artist laid bare, and it's painful to watch, frankly. We wanna see our comedians make us laugh. We don't wanna see their angst-ridden crisis of conscience as he looks around and finds no friends or family around him.

What evolves is that he takes a struggling comedian under his wing and we have a sometimes funny buddy picture with the two of them. But what remains and runs like a scathing current throughout is the real fact that while his comedy is top-notch, his people skills are not. His whole life has been in service of the funny, and along the way he kinda neglected the whole wife-family-kids thing.

It ends, as you'd expect it to, on a note of hope. But along the way, you are walking through this man's sad, sad life. It's very real, very inside Hollywood. Just probably not a place many want to stay for very long.

How to REALLY be on Twitter

Everyone from Oprah to Ashton Kutcher is convinced that you need to be on Twitter. And if you look, you can find a zillion social media experts telling you to be there, and how to make money there (good luck with that, btw). Mashable has just published a great all-Twitter all-the-time guide so you can plan your every move.

And yet, I still keep hearing about people staring at blank screens, wondering what all the fuss is about. People who join Twitter, all excited, then leave after a month. People who haven't the foggiest idea of what to do, how to really live here. This column's for you.

I am revising and refining this as I go along, but here's what I know so far. When I first joined Twitter (@michebel), I followed people like crazy. Mostly tech people and podcasters that I knew about, cause that's who was talking to me. I followed and followed and followed, and pretty soon I had amassed 3000+ people that I was following. Not long after that, Twitter put these stopgaps in place (rather than getting fail whales all the time), which only allowed people to add up to 2000 people. Period.

So, I was stuck with the need/desire to add lots of people, and had a doorstop put in front of me. I did what many did to get around this: I opened another account. Pretty soon, that too, had 2000 (different) people that I was following. Now, I don't recommend that you have unlimited accounts that fill up to 2000. Even two is probably not a good idea.

The deal with Twitter is that once the same number follows you, you can start adding more. So, for example, if I was following 2000 and 3000 were following me, I could add another 1000 more. Your followers can be unlimited, but the amount you can follow is capped.

Most folks don't know all that. Many learn the hard way, like I did.

Let's just say I wanna start all over again, like I'm a Twitter newbie. How would I do it now? What have I learned about adding people to my stream?

Start with the basics. If you only follow ten people, for example, say your close friends, you are going to see posts from all of those ten friends. And that's it. Some of them may post like mad, and some of them not at all. So, no matter how much you love those ten friends, you may see a whole lotta hogwash from one friend and nothing from the other nine. Or even lots of posts by a couple people, prompting the often heard refrain: Twitter is stupid!

Well, all due respect, but that's because you're not doing it right.

Think of it like this. Twitter is like a constantly running stock ticker. Words are constantly coming out, and I do mean constantly. To get the most value out of it, you have to add the most value in. I mean that in several ways.

If I were starting over, I would cherry pick those I add to my stream. I would seek out each person's profile, read some of their Tweets and see if even one thing on the page makes me go: Hmm! or Wow! or Interesting! And if several things do, they are a definite add.

When you are looking at other people's profiles: look for this especially: the following-follower ratio. It should be about even. The best Tweeters are good about following people back. (If I wasn't constrained by the 2000 limit, I'd be following everyone.)

Since I didn't take a lot of time when I originally added them, I'm taking that time now. I have a running list of those I want to add, and I fine tune my list every single day. Those who target ads at me, or use words like #moonfruit to win a MacBook are removed, and I add new folks from my list. And every single day, my Twitter stream gets better and better.

I suppose it varies what people want out of their Twitter stream, but I look at it like this: a constant flow of information I want/need. Some, for example, are happy having friends who just spew links at them. I find this to be tiresome. In fact, there is only one guy on my list who only spews links. (But his links are really good, so I keep him.)

But I find a mix of people who spew links, people who quote some wisdom or poetry, people who just write funny or interesting things and people who might inform me about something I want to know about (a concert, a movie premiere, a TV show starting), is really what I'm looking for. And that is, by and large, what I spew back.

I also listen to music on Blip, and post the songs I'm listening to there. If you do more than a few, you'll lose a few followers, but for me it's worth it.

It's a give and take stream of consciousness. You put stuff in, you take stuff out. It's constantly going back and forth. My roommate (who still doesn't "get" Twitter) said recently: "Do you read every single thing in there?" Yes, by and large I do. And I look at the pictures that people send, and watch the videos and follow their links, and repost interesting stuff back to my Facebook page, or add things of my own. That's REALLY what it's about.

People who don't get it yet (including mainstream media, MSM) can see Twitter as a waste of time. Lots of people saw chat rooms as a waste of time too. I made some of my best friends through hanging out in chat rooms, so I respectfully disagree. But since the early days of CompuServe and AOL, I've learned the importance of developing community online. And Twitter now, really does (as we've seen by all the correspondence with Iran in recent times) plug you into the whole world.

That is pretty overwhelming indeed.

So break it down. Down to your own personal little chunks. Not everyone is going to have gold nuggets every single time. But have people on your stream who amuse you or make you laugh or make you think or just make you feel better. That is really the reason to be on Twitter. We are the World, Twitter is us.

The Conundrum of Wes, Or When Did The Bachelor Become Fake?

I admit it. I'm a girl, and I'm addicted to The Bachelor/Bachelorette.

It was one of the reality shows that hooked me from the very beginning, with its attempts at classy romance. Lush locales, pretty clothes, elegant people. I loved it.

I've watched nearly all the seasons of both shows (all episodes). Didn't care for the Navy guy (who chose no one in the end) or the blond guy (I think second season.) Other than that, I was pretty much there. I've seen their twists and turns, but by and large, it was predictable. And we LIKED THAT.

It's fairly simple, really. Classy women wanna see a classy woman (or man) choose another classy man (or woman), and take them on elegant dates. Simple formula. It works. Don't mess with it.

That is one thing that reality shows should have learned from the first season of Survivor, and we know from Twitter. Leave people to themselves, and they'll surprise the heck out of you. Just thinking of that speech of Sue's from the final Tribal Council gives me chills now.

The Bachelor series has been fairly free from controversy. Other than the guy picking the girl, then dumping her last season, and re-picking the previous girl, in front of a national audience, there wasn't a whole lotta drama. (Don't worry about the dumped Melissa. She went from tears on The Bachelor, to finalist in Dancing with the Stars, to a cushy gig with ABC News.)

People thought that whole thing was fake. To me, it seemed very very real.

This season, though... We have a wonderful new Bachelorette, another dumpee from last season's Bachelor. By and large, she seems pretty straightforward and smart. Except for this whole nonsense with Wes. The Twitterverse is also starting to talk about how this was a producer manipulation, and not real. "Cause how could she be that stupid?"

For those of you not hanging by your TV every week, here is the basic gist. Wes is a musician. With a band. His deal for going on the show is to promote his music. He doesn't give a crap about the girl. In fact, he has a girlfriend back at home in Austin, TX.

Now, what's really fishy about this right from the start is that you know the producers vette the crap out of every contestant. Checking and rechecking and rechecking again so that no craziness shows up when they least expect it.

Either the producers are really losing their touch this season, or they planned all this. My roommate even thinks that Wes isn't a "guy," that he's actually an actor. Because what we we're seeing is Wes, trash talking the girl (Jillian) to his buddies in the guys' house, then being all nice to her and telling her there was no problem. It's brought up MORE THAN ONCE, the reveal actually spans three episodes.

And, bizarrely, she KEEPS him for two of those three episodes, finally getting rid of him this week.

When he's trash talking her, he says stuff like he's only there for his music, he doesn't care about the girl. He just wants publicity for his band. When he takes Jillian on a hometown date, there's Wes' band. SURPRISE!

Now, I will say this: to the producers' credit, they showed as little of his music as possible. Didn't even really show his band (thankfully). They made the camera shots ALL about Jillian. Still. Wes was there.

It felt very much like Wes was manipulating Jillian, but it felt just as much that the producers were manipulating us. And it's really never felt that way before. Not since "Johnny Fairplay" lied about his grandmother on Survivor has an audience (and show) been so manipulated and used.

Wes is in the limo, boasting about how he got to fourth place, while having a girlfriend. That's something to boast about? That you AND YOUR FAMILY lied on national TV? That's gonna sell records for you? And sell out your upcoming tour? Really? You think so?

I dunno. Maybe I live a sheltered life, but the people I see and interact with in social media are all about transparency and truth-telling. That's the currency we trade on these days. So while everyone is steaming about what a colossal jerk Wes is, I think I'm a bit more mad about this season's producers, who added all kinds of hokeyness this season: from the Amazing Race-style treasure hunt to the weird foot fetish guy to this guitar-playing Wes.

Just give us our Bachelor, straight up. No muss, no fuss, and especially no Wes. Thanks.

On MSM vs. Twitter

Michael Jackson is dead. Long live the Thriller.

That's not what this story is about, however. The more interesting thing is how this story, like so many these days, unfolded. I simultaneously heard about it on Twitter and heard Chuck P. on Internet radio station Indie 103.1 mention that he was reading it also.

Now let me say this about that. In the entire time that I've been on Twitter, I've seen many stories broken: earthquakes, the plane in the Hudson, the unrest in Iran. All reported on Twitter long before any traditional news outlets get ahold of them.

Having worked in newspapers, I understand this. The traditional pattern for a news organization is that you hear a rumor. You go check it out. You get at least two separate sources to confirm the news/rumor. Then you go with it. Not before.

However, let me just suggest that news organizations need to rethink this a bit. Not that they should run with unconfirmed reports, but let me go further into this Michael Jackson is dead story.

After reading it in multiple places on Twitter, including reports which said "I've talked to his tour promoters. They confirm the death." (which was good enough for me to believe it), the mainstream media (MSM) insisted on walking through their paces, dragging out what we on Twitter already knew.

Luckily, we had TMZ, who had initially broken the story, confirming it. Then the LA Times confirmed that he was in a coma, and then confirmed his death.

We end up with the bizarre reality of CNN "kinda" reporting his death. "The LA Times has confirmed, but CNN has not..." WTF?

CBS News confirms. Then ABC News confirms. Still CNN holds out. What are they waiting for? By this time, there are friends of the family, UCLA staff, city staff, all of whom are quoted on Twitter as having confirmed it. It really made CNN look laughable.

Sure, I understand. It's a big story. You don't wanna get it wrong.

But here's my other truth, as I told a friend of mine who was skeptical just hearing it from Twitter. There has not been ONE single thing that I've heard first on Twitter as fact, that didn't turn out to be so. Twitter is not a place for rumor-mongering, that I've seen. It is a network of people able to get news in ways that other people not right next to his hospital bed cannot. And should be respected as such.

Bruno's Butt Signifies a New Media Paradigm Change

Maybe it's already happened somewhere else, and it escaped my attention. But to me, the moment I saw the tide turning on the new media revolution will always be marked by Bruno's bare butt.

People can discourse endlessly about how silly Twitter is (cause they don't use it) and how no one wants to hear about what you had for breakfast (because they don't get it), but there is a very real revolution happening here. And it's happening on all fronts: TV, radio, newspapers (what's left of them), magazines.

Here is the weapon we are using: transparency. People on Twitter and in all social media are becoming, like it or not, more honest about their lives and what matters to them. It has become a mass force, whether those in power realize it or not. A tide that would now be difficult to turn. If you are in the media, you would do well to adopt the new honesty.

Let's take another look.

In previous days, stars hired publicists to create stunts for them to get their name in the press. I heard just recently about some publicist admitting to hiring the bobby soxers to scream for Frank Sinatra. (To which I say, shameful.) In any case, it went on. It went on a lot. And the public was blissfully ignorant to these maneuverings. They took whatever craziness they saw in the press as "just those wacky folks in Hollywood."

But just now, something astonishing has happened. 

We have a pretty spectacular stunt at the MTV Awards. Sasha Baron Cohen, in the guise of his new character, Bruno, comes out, dressed as an angel, flying through the air, but askew. As if something has gone wrong. He lands, butt in Eminem's face. Eminem and bodyguards storm off. And SCENE.

One could, perhaps, detect something shady about this event by the fact that MTV's cameras cut to Eminem just BEFORE Bruno lands, looking worried. Or the fact (and maybe only Hollywood folk know this) but any guy handling the rigging for someone flying who lets them instead land on a celebrity would NEVER have a career in this town again.

So, even before Andy Sandberg's writer came out with the concept that it had been rehearsed, WE KNEW. We knew and had already dismissed it as a fakery. Not just we jaded Hollywood types who view everything through fake eyes. No, the mainstream Twitter universe knew. And were saying so.

And to me, that moment represents a landmark watershed event. The tide has truly turned on fakery and lies.

Now, if Eminem and Bruno wanted to be truly au courant, they would just man up and say, yeah, we thought it'd be a funny gag. It was staged. We'd laugh. They would really look cool. Instead, they are sticking with the "no, it was a horrible tragedy" story.

Made me think back to that brouhaha with Eminem and Michael Stipe a few years back. Nothing is real. Except the new reality in the new transparent universe we live in. Tell the truth. You'll like it.

On this season of 24

Tonight, I was lucky enough to watch a screening of the last two episodes of Season 7 of "24" with about 1600 of my closest friends. Actually, it was a SAG screening, a week prior to the episodes actually airing. After the screening, cast members, director and producers talked to everyone. It was bliss. But all of that is for my entertainment page and podcast.

What I wanted to talk about here are some of the questions addressed in this season. Let me also say upfront that in my entertainment writing I'm already talking about 24 taking the Emmy for Best Drama this season. I truly believe it deserves it.

My thesis, though it was applicable moreso in the West Wing years than in, for example, the year The Sopranos won, is that the Best Drama, in large measure reflects the themes of where we are as a country. The issues we are struggling with, the landscape of what matters to us.

For me, that's what separates what is labeled "Best" Drama over just good shows. It's everything all together. The direction, the writing, the acting, the set design, the costumes, the cinematography, the editing, the music--everything that goes into a great show. But when you have five (or this year, seven) shows that all fit that qualification, what pushes a show further to finally take the statue?

It's those big question things. I'll save the discussion of the other shows I think are going to be contenders for another blog. This is in-depth on 24.

So, in case you are unlucky enough to not be watching this season of 24, let me walk you down the path of what happened in this season (and don't worry, I'll leave the key details out of the last two episodes, since most people haven't seen them yet; though I do want to talk about the themes in them).

The biggest hot button issue, ripped from our own headlines, is the subject of torture. Anyone who's seen any episode of 24 knows that Jack Bauer (our hero) is pretty much down with the torture thing. (Didya see him rip that guy's ear off with his teeth? Ok, then.)

When our story opens... well, not including the pre-story where Jack was a good guy, saving kids in Africa... the agency that Jack's worked for for six previous seasons (CTU) has been disbanded, primarily because of its torture tactics, to say nothing of its blatantly ignoring the law at its convenience. Jack, in fact, is before a Senate subcommittee as our season opens.

What you must know about Jack, if you don't already, is that although no one is completely "a good guy" or "a bad guy" in this show, Jack is about as good a good guy as you can get. His motives are pure, and driven. Through seven seasons, you can say this for sure about Jack: he does what's right. That is, if he's tasked with guarding the president, guard the president he does. If he is tasked with getting information out of someone, he does that too. In both cases, by whatever means necessary. Some of these means, I assure you, are pretty gruesome.

Along the way, he does care for his family and friends and innocent bystanders to the greatest degree possible. If he could save everyone and torture no one, I genuinely believe he would do that. But he deals mostly with some pretty shady characters, and sometimes has to go to their lengths to fit in (as he did this season). So even just there, it got into some grey area. But that's the gist of it. He drives, pushing through concrete, to get to his objective. 

That is why, in short, he is our hero. He can filter through all the competing agendas and distractions and multiple things going on to get to the main point: save the president, extract information from the bad guy, whatever.

So, as the season starts, he gets taken out of the hearings, to help the FBI with one little case, which lasts a very long 24 hours. So much happens in this season, it's unbelievable.

But at the beginning, he is tasked to work with two FBI operatives who absolutely and unequivocally don't believe in torture. They work within the confines of the law, and that's it. They are appalled by Jack Bauer's brutal tactics, and tell him so, frequently.

Of course, as the season wears away, they are put into situtations which require a change of attitude on that score.

And that, then is what is different about this season of 24. The characters this season really have more of a conscience. Even the smaller characters. There is one, bombs are armed and ready. One guy says: Push the button. He actually refuses. Little things like this never happened on 24 before.

What are the repercussions of our actions, it seems to be asking. When is torture justified? Ever? This conversation is being played out on our political stage right now.

What I wanted to look at is the bigger picture. If our new President Obama is indeed rebooting our ship of state as this season of 24 is rebooting the fictional government picture, let's look at what really needs to happen here. We can argue endlessly about how we all got off course exactly, but this is the deal. We need to all reboot ourselves individually so that what is at our core is not cynicism and sneaking around doing the most convenient thing. No cutting corners and saying, It's good enough.

But simply this: DO THE RIGHT THING. The most humane, the kindest, the most letter of the law. We all know the difference between good and bad. CHOOSE GOOD. Simply that.

We have three characters now whom we can count on to do the right thing: Jack Bauer (our hero), Renee Walker (introduced this season, who has been built up to be like the female Jack Bauer, but with more of a conscience) and our new female president (and btw, 24 had the first black president too!), Alison Taylor.

They have goodness at their core. We can count on them for this, we can root for them because of this. It's good to have good people to root for again.

Like I said, there were 1600 fans of 24 filling the theatre. It was exhilarating and thrilling, first of all to be watching the show with all of them, but what was also remarkable to me: they cheered, loudly, when the right choices were made. When characters chose to do the right thing.

Believe me when I tell you that all choices on 24 are difficult ones. But we, as a country and individually, need to get back to the place where what guides us forward is doing the right thing. Whether that is giving a quarter to the person begging for it on the corner, and not asking questions about it; or refusing to commit felonies just because our bank manager boss asks it of us; or whatever our own personal situation is.

Hone in on what is the right choice. Instill it in ourselves. Make it part of our makeup. And when we are faced with a choice, we choose the right thing. Every time. That is truly what President Obama is tasking us with. That is what we, collectively, need to be doing right now. Bringing back that crazy thing called integrity that totally disappeared during the Bush years.

Prosecuting those who condoned waterboarding, instead of looking the other way. That's what we have laws for. There is no "putting the past in the past" crap. Wrongdoers are punished. Criminals are brought to justice. That's how this country really works. Part of our job as citizens is enforcing that.

I love 24 as a show because it reminds me, through Renee Walker and Alison Taylor and Jack Bauer, that this is what we need to do. In every small action. In every big action. In every case, at all times: The right thing.

On the importance of hand shakes

This blog is in response to this post:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/05/09/hand-shaking-is-so-medieval-lets-end-it/

Wow. Michael Arrington. My first response, dude, is that you seriously need to deal with that little OCD problem you've got going on there.

(Most normal people don't freak out when touching others to this degree.)

But I want to address this from another perspective. While it is true that all sorts of touch can spread all sorts of disease, so do public toilets and whatnot. DEAL.

The more relevant point to me is that most people live large parts of their lives today where they never even get away from their computer, or leave their homes. And when in public, they are hypersensitive to touch. I say this living in Los Angeles, where the whole celebrity "don't touch me" thing just compounds the problem. People just flat out don't touch here.

And that is as big a problem as the OCD discussed previously.

Touching IS a part of socialization. Touching, handshaking as he describes, may have its origins in wanting to show you have no weapon, but there are other, more spiritual things that are also exchanged in a simple handshake.

You look in the person's eyes. You assess what type of person you have in front of you. And just this act of initiating trust (whether socially motivated or not) increases intimacy between two people. I don't know about anyone else, but someone who fist pumps me, or bumps my elbow, instead of shaking hands, I'd be highly suspicious of.

Course, I'm German, and handshaking is HUGE over there. (In fact, Mr. Arrington, maybe you should avoid going there. They are all about the handshake, even in casual meetings.)

I am a hugging type of person, and once I become friends with someone, I HUG them. People in our culture don't get nearly enough hugs. When was the last time you got one?

People need/desire/crave touch. The handshake is one of the few types of touch that is totally socially acceptable. To take that away would provoke even more serious consequences for our society than the "disease" craziness that you talk about.

So get over your damn self. Be a man, shake that hand.

The Politics of Retweeting

As most Internet things do, this all started with Dave Winer.

More specifically, this:

http://www.scripting.com/stories/2009/04/26/retweetIsStupid.html

Now, I admire Dave Winer immensely. I try, whenever possible, to give him the props he deserves. If it weren't for him, as a podcaster, I wouldn't exist.

However, on this Retweeting thing, I think he is just flat out wrong.

Winer likens retweeting on Twitter to voting something up on Digg or Reddit. While there is an element of that, that's certainly not all of it, in fact, for me, it's not even most of it.

So first, what is it that gets me to Retweet something? Just because someone says: Please retweet? Um, no.

I look at Twitter (and really all of social media) as this whole flow of information. I do my part to share what I know or am encountering, and others share back the same on their end. It's a back and forth flow. But I don't wanna clutter up someone's stream with lots of cute/wise/funny crap, any more than I'd want them cluttering up mine.

Twitter, for me, is not the place to post links to good stories. In fact, that's what I use Facebook and Digg for. And, for me, if someone else has posted a link to a good story, one that moves me in some way, I don't retweet it. I post the link to my Facebook page. Or Digg it up, or both.

I personally save the Retweets for something special. Some witty turn of phrase. Some interesting situation that seems funny. Or a memorable quote that I think is gonna help someone through their day, as it helped me through mine. I don't ever, in short, Retweet something unless it means something to me.

And the other crucial aspect that Dave Winer is completely omitting/forgetting is the people factor. Now, he's got nearly 22,000 folks following him. Maybe he doesn't care so much what each and every one of them has to say. But our Twitter streams reflect only those we've chosen to put on them. We get their posts, and no one else's. Unless it's a Retweet.

Depending on who else has Retweeted it, that post can come from four or five or 25 levels away from my inner circle. And so, I may find someone else interesting, worth following. Or, someone may find me that way. I value my new followers, and I enjoy finding new people to follow (given Twitter's draconian rules about following...).

The Retweet is more akin to the word of mouth on a movie, or the recipe passed over a fencepost. It's from me to you, my followers. Do with it what you will, but it means something to me. And because of that, I want to know WHO the original post came from. I wanna see that it's a retweet, because it makes me look at it differently. It makes me know that it's something outside the normal people I follow.

As I look at Winer's post again, I see he's really stressing the whole "linking" concept, and railing against that. I do agree with him on that point. I try to keep the links I post in my Tweets to a minimum. I personally don't feel that Twitter is the place to bombard people with links, and really don't read the links of others, by and large. He's right. Digg is the place for that, or one's Facebook page.

But Retweeting an idea, a concept, a funny story? I'm all over that. I wish Dave were too.

PS: also commenting on this tempest this week was a blog I liked: 

http://openpresswire.com/twitter/retweet-is-stupid-think-again-fellow-social-media-citizens/

What do you think? Do you retweet?

XMEN: Origins-Wolverine

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD, BUT THIS STORY'S BEEN OUT FOREVER...

Here is what happens in "X MEN: Origins-Wolverine." Cute kid ends up killing after someone kills his dad. Kid and brother run into the woods, on the lam. Ten minute opening montage (nice camerawork) of killing through various wars from the Civil (I think) to Vietnam. Boys end up in Africa working for some mercenary team, killing. Despite the fact that they've been killing for a long time now, Wolverine suddenly has a crisis of conscience which causes him to leave the group. The rest, it is assumed, go on killing.

Wolverine begins a life of simple basics in Canada with the woman he loves. She tells him a mystical story about Wolverine. Brother, meanwhile, inexplicably starts killing. The woman Wolverine loves is involved. Revenge set up. Wolverine is willing to go through unspeakable amounts of torture and nearly die to avenge this wrong. He bolts out of the tank naked (OK, that was cool). Runs away.

Meets the best characters in the movie, two sweet kind farmers who give him clothes and food. Major FX scenes, they (of course) get killed. Lots of stuff blows up real good. Wolverine kills one bad guy who was really on his ass.

Drives away on a cool motorcycle.

He finds rogue members of his mercenary band who (inexplicably) haven't yet been killed. They tell him of another mutant who escaped "the Island," where the bad guy is doing his experiments. Wolverine sets out to find him.

(Now, as an aside, Wolverine can supposedly hear/feel/sense things that most can't. This power seems to only work sporadically, since the biggest things that happen he is unaware of, or, as he says: "I didn't listen to my instincts." --When was the last time a superhero didn't listen to their instincts? But I digress.)

In a flurry of flying cards, the luscious Taylor Kitsch (from "Friday Night Lights") is introduced as Gambit.

Wolverine's revenge mission now (supposedly) is to find this Island, so he can kill his brother. Wolverine is again ignoring his instincts as the guy he's seeking is currently right out back, smacking the living tar out of another guy he brought along. OK, he gets killed too.

Screaming, "I will never go back there," gorgeous Gambit rips a hole in the wall. Wolverine falls out of it and finds his brother. He proceeds to try to kill him.

Gambit inexplicably stops the fight. Lots of stuff gets destroyed in the process. Wolverine's brother, known in later movies as Sabretooth (played in the first XMen by a different actor), inexplicably leaves, even though his mission is ostensibly to kill his brother.

Gorgeous Gambit and hunky Wolverine team up to seek out the runaway brother and kill him. And kill everyone each man hates just for good measure.

They arrive. Wolverine enters the compound. Gambit inexplicably disappears.

Double cross. Major double cross. Things are not what they seem. Wolverine wants to kill. Bad guy has been created to fight Wolverine, named Deadpool. (This is only relevant for the inevitable sequel.) Both Wolverine and Deadpool are indestructible, you see.

Major kick ass set piece on the top of a major notable landmark. Wolverine, his brother and Deadpool involved. Fight, fight, fight. Landmark destroyed, Deadpool decapitated, Wolverine's brother (now inexplicably on his side) disappears.

Gambit (who was who knows where all this time?) reappears. Rather than helping him (when he clearly needs it), Wolverine tells gorgeous Gambit to go save some kids. "I'm on it!" he says, cheerfully. By the time they get there, the kids are getting safely into a chopper guided by a character we know and love from the other XMen movies.

Gambit shrugs his shoulders, goes back to help Wolverine, whom if he'd stayed there, he could've helped in major ways. Instead, death and major injury occurs. Wolverine, as a consequence, loses his memory.

Buildings are crumbling, authorities are coming. Gambit realizes that Wolverine has no memory, tries to convince him he's a friend and get him out of there. Wolverine wants to "go it alone." Despite the fact that he has no memory and obviously shouldn't be wandering around alone, Gambit lets him do so.

The end.

WHAT a CROCK.

So, yeah, if you like killing and stuff blowing up real good, this could be a movie you wanna see in theatres. If you are a person who craves a semblance of a believable plot, you might want to avoid this. On the other hand, Taylor Kitsch is gorgeous and makes a stunning movie debut as Gambit. He alone is almost worth the price of admission.

Happy 4 year Anniversary to the LA Podcasters!

Today I attended the LA Podcasters meetup at the LA Farmer's Market, where it had originally begun. While it was a pretty laid-back, casual gathering, its use now, as it has always really been, was to gauge where we are as podcasters and where our industry is.

When I headed back to the benches near E.B.'s Beer and Wine, I really had no idea how profoundly this meeting would affect me. But in truth, we have all been through a lot. 

The story of podcasting, very similar and parallel to the story of the LA Podcasters, is this: Lots of people get into it at first, then realize that this podcasting thing is actually a lot of work, and drop out. Or realize that the riches are not going to fall from the sky from doing it, and drop out.

So those of us still left standing after four years (and in attendance) included: Tim Coyne from The Hollywood Podcast (and now leader of the LA Podcasters); Dan Klass of the oldest podcast in the group, The Bitterest Pill; two of the Tres Jefes; Bill Palmer from iProng and me (Whispered Pearls and MicheBelz Hollywood).

All along, it seems, the thread we've been following has been: what is this podcasting thing? Where is it leading? Who are we along the continuum? 

And the answer, shocking to me, though it shouldn't be, is simple. Podcasting is where new media is, though old media refuses to accept it. This new world that we are entering, or in, is an inclusive one. One that reflects the sitting around the campfire mentality of old more than the "how fast can I become a celebrity?" mentality that has replaced people's hopes lately.

Those who have veered off of the path along our podcasting travels are those who head in the direction of that fast buck, or even the bucks in general. As you look back over four years of podcasting, you can clearly say that those who self-destructed were of two kinds: those who weren't willing to do the work, and those who sought fame and fortune from it.

I consider myself neither famous nor making money from my podcasts (although I do make some, it's not a livable wage). And yet, I'm still here, doing it.

The thing about the get-rich-quick schemes is that it's an old business model. I think it's one of the ways that causes old media to flounder when they look at the new media on the Internet. "So how do you make money at this?" they say, and have said since 1992, while their own industry dies around them. And to them, $$$$ is the bank they make after decades in their industry of choice (newspapers, magazines, TV, radio).

There isn't that kind of money to be made right now in podcasting. But is that a reason to stop doing it? Does that mean it's not successful?

We shall see who the ultimate victors are in this nascent industry. All I do know for sure is that those people at that table tonight podcast because they LOVE it. They podcast because they have to. They podcast because they have something to say, and, if you ask me, say it quite well. Slow and steady wins this race, and I'm proud to know all these guys and be a part of this group.

My roommate and I were chatting about the online experience. I was trying to get her to enjoy Twitter as much as I do, or at least understand what it's really all about. (She still doesn't.)

She's quite a wonderful, gregarious person with many friends. It seemed like it would be a natural transition for her. I think today I finally realized where our great divide is. She really doesn't get the whole "online" thing. Mind you, she's an Internet person. The bulk of her income is derived online. But it's the very things I think she's most good at IRL that baffle her online: the chatting, the social, the life.

Which mystifies me. Until she said one thing today which explained everything to me, and made me wonder how many others have this same boggle with Twitter. She said she doesn't like chat rooms and doesn't understand their function.

For me, and I consider myself to be a tech-savvy geek girl with a wide variety of friends, my online experience began in the chat rooms of AOL, back in the early 1990s. Mostly I was just trying to (much as I still am now) figure out what this is all about, where we are, and where we are going with this. Certainly the "normies" of the time accused me of spending too much time online, much as the "normies" now do too.

My response then, as now, is: You don't understand. This is where I live.

This is where I socialize, this is where I learn about things, this is (hopefully soon) where I work.

Not that I neglect my real life to do online things either. I think it's essential to have balance about it. But the way I look at it is that the online experience has replaced the bars and smoky rooms of former days. And if I have an interest in antique cars, for example, I'm quite sure there's a chat room or online group out there somewhere where I can talk to others with just such a passion. 

I thought about it after my roommate and I chatted, and most of my very closest friends today: those who've helped me through thick and thin, who've helped me move across the country, even--I met in a chat room, or online.

For me, the online experience has enriched and enlivened my life. Chat rooms and online worlds and places like Facebook and MySpace and Twitter are my constant online party. I can circulate from this tech guru to that movie director to this hot guy in the space of a few hours. Or, I can put on my "I'm looking for a job" hat and search the job forums.  It is work, it is play, it is my life, and you never know who you're going to meet here, or who is going to give you that special tidbit that helps you make it through your day.

The online experience is so deeply a part of my psyche that I cannot imagine life without it. When I was without Internet briefly in January, I palpably felt like I was missing so much of the ongoing conversation. It's become a spiritual experience, a romantic connection, a comedy club: whatever it is I'm in the mood for, whatever part of myself I need to express, there is a way to do that online. Even expressing my fantasy self in Second Life, if I like.

When I first got on AOL, I felt like I wanted to talk to the whole world. And now, with Twitter, I almost feel like I can. I have people on my Twitter stream who tweet in German and French and Spanish (languages I understand). I helps me to broaden my horizons in ways I didn't know I needed my horizons broadened.

Someone recently said that, with Twitter, they no longer need to check a newspaper. They get all the news of the day right there, from the people who most care about what they care about.

My roommate is in her early 70s. Maybe it's too late for her to ever get it. And maybe I don't get it as much as a 20-year-old. But boy, am I glad that I'm able to be part of this conversation. This is where the world is turning right now. I'm excited to see what the future holds. 

In response to this blog post:

http://blog.teamnimbuswest.com/2008/11/why-social-networking-locally-and-digitally-can-be-a-bad-idea/

I have this to say:

Boy, do I disagree with this premise.

First of all, perhaps 148.7 is the maximum number of relationships someone could have in 1998, according to some anthropologist (and even that I disagree with). But a lot has changed in the interim 11 years.

Things just don't work the way they did in 1998. We are an accelerated culture. Things are moving faster, our communication methods move faster, we get and lose friends (and social contacts) faster.

Perhaps you could argue that those few friends whom you could sit around the coffee table with, pouring out your soul are few and far between (as you do state later in the article), but I really don't agree with that either.

The nature of our interaction has changed with this new technology too.

The model, as you state the case, used to be that we'd be uptight and bottled in around our business colleagues and the public at large, only "letting our hair down" with a "few people." It isn't that way anymore and I certainly don't operate that way.

I have become my brand, and those who know my brand know me. I'm a podcaster and an author, I blog frequently and am active in nearly every social network. And anyone who knows me in any of those places knows me, complete and unvarnished. There isn't anything I hide from anyone.

Anyone in the blogosphere who cares to knows everything about me, from the fact that coffee ice cream is my favorite to the fact that I was sad about losing my job recently as newspapers dissolve.

I have a large listening audience (which I'm contractually obligated not to disclose), 17,000+ friends on MySpace, 1,100+ friends on Facebook, 2,900+ following on Twitter. Which of those would I be sitting down to have coffee with? Well, any of them that ask. Who am I going to glean information from? Build business relationships with? Advance strategic partnerships with? All of them.

Instead of parceling out morsels of information to my close associates, I can now share what I know with anyone who needs to know, and they share theirs with me. Who knows what types of questions I will ask my audience on Twitter? or they ask of me?

It's become an ebb and flow of constant information, and constant relationships. I expect and hope that these people trust me, as I trust them, because that's how it works now. I am honest and open and real with everyone in the blogosphere, to the best of my ability.

My connections are WIDE AND DEEP. And no, having 73,000 followers on Twitter isn't meaningless. It increases the chances that whatever I ask will get answered by someone. That's huge. It also says to me that those people think that what I have to say has some value. That's important to me, whether it's 73,000 or 7 who are really listening.

But, as much as I do consider myself to be a brand, who hopefully one day will make money by my presence and my insight, I sure don't look at those 73,000 followers as people who can help me "make more money in less time." For heaven's sake.

And, frankly, someone like you who was just talking to me because he was looking for a business opportunity "to make more money in less time" would be someone I bounce immediately from my Twitter connections list. Cause that person just doesn't get it.

In reference to this article: 

http://www.davidhenderson.com/2009/02/28/should-traditional-media-fear-its-social-sibling/

I have this to say.

Listening to some of the voices online at the minute, it’d certainly seem that way. Yet history doesn’t bear these opinions out.

TV would kill radio.
DVD’s would kill movie ticket sales.
CD’s would kill vinyl.
The Internet would kill traditional media.
Music downloads would kill traditional retailers.
Maybe I’m looking at the wrong picture, but I still see all of the things that are meant to be dead by now. If anything, many of the doomed mediums are thriving and actually performing better than their replacements.

Obviously, he isn't seeing what I'm seeing here. Way back in the day, people used to sit around their radios and watch them. TV came along, with all its fancy pictures, that sure ended. Sure, people continued to listen to radio, but it was in a very different way than it was previously. The dominant media force became the TV.

As far as music, the only people listening to and enjoying vinyl records are the diehard collectors, who probably even have a few 78s in their collection. For that matter, CDs aren't as prevalent with the youth of today as digital music. In case you haven't noticed, buying online, listening on your iPod or computer, has replaced what was previously.

And last I checked, Tower Records has gone out of business. You can argue that there still are record stores around, but it's all a question of time and priorities. The fact of the matter is that 20 years from now, everyone will be buying their music digitally, and not even think about what they have lost by not having vinyl around or brick-and-mortar record stores, for that matter.

Until recently, DVDs pretty much had put a serious dent in traditional movie ticket sales. Why go to a theatre, when you can sit at home with your friends and watch on your big screen TV, with the surround sound? People are going back now, interestingly, because of the recession, it is posited. But moviegoing has become less of a "we must do this in a theatre" proposition, and more of a "let's get together with our friends at the theatre tonight" kind of deal.

What is succeeding in theatres is what cannot be done at home: big explosion type movies, great special effects, 3D things. Moviegoing has become quite a different thing than it was even ten years ago.

So, really, the only one left in that list is "The Internet will kill traditional media."

Look around, my brother. For my money, newspapers are dead and dying daily. People get their news, their sports scores, their entertainment coverage, their crossword puzzles, their classified ads--everything they went to newspapers for, they now get online.

People who work at traditional media can piss and moan about how they wish this wasn't so, and how it just "couldn't happen." It's already happening. There was a story yesterday about how Hearst wants to "save newspapers" with a Kindle-like device on which people could read their daily paper. Are they kidding? Newsflash to Hearst: I already have such a device. It's called an iPhone.

The only newspaper which seems to really embrace the changes and be adapting to it (the New York Times) is there, in an iPhone app, and I happily read it there.

Furthermore, the other item that traditional media--radio, TV, magazines, newspapers, I'm talking to ALL of you--seems to be blissfully ignoring is that people are CONSUMING information quite differently than they used to. Traditional media is busy arguing whether or not newspapers are dead, while people seek their information through Facebook and Twitter and whatever news aggregator sites they prefer. I like Digg. Radio is arguing about whether or not terrestrial radio is more viable than satellite while we are seeking out music through online stations and our iPods. TV is scratching its head about why viewership seems to be down everywhere, and doesn't seem to notice how popular Netflix is, how many of their TV shows are being watched and sought out online.

It's happening, people. Keep your head in the sand as long as you want to, it's already changing all around you. And for us, the consumer, this is a good thing. Podcasts give us a breath of fresh air, where people speak truth and are free to swear if they want to. Why wouldn't we seek that out instead?

If traditional media wants to save any vestiges of what it's got left, it needs to quit bellyaching about whether or not it's dying, and figure out some way to get those journalists and those radio DJs and those TV anchors onto the web, and find a viable way to pay them to do what they do so well, but do it THERE.

It's not that we don't want it anymore, we just want it in this new format in our time-shifted patterns, and wish to hell they'd quit staring at their vinyl records, and figure it out already.

I realized today why I am a true Los Angeleno now.

I exist at the moment, in the greatest depression since my father died 30 years ago (certainly thus far the worst year of my life). Heck, so far all that's happened this year was a job loss, an industry that I worked for disintegrating, a radio station that I adored going online only, the bottom dropping out of the financial markets, and the man I love choosing someone else. It can only go up from here!

But that last statement is what made me really realize that I truly belong here, here in Los Angeles.

This is a strange city. One that, blissfully, the rest of the country doesn't really seem to understand, and probably wishes would just drop off into the ocean already. So let me explain.

People come here, with their dreams bundled on their sleeves, believing in their deepest hearts that they write better screenplays, or are better actors, or know the movie business better than anyone else. They probably come here, with stars in their eyes, or at least (as I did) with big dollar signs in them. Foolishly believing that this city was gonna be the path to riches. In reality, I have been broker here than I ever have been in my life.

Here's what I have found in story after countless story of this brutal town. You get two years. You come here, naive and full of hope and optimism. The city quickly shows you that things aren't going to be handed to you on a silver platter. EVEN IF you are the best actor, writer, dancer, musician or cinematographer this town has ever seen.

You get two years to tough it out. Many leave in the first six months, slinking back home with their tail between their legs. Many more struggle with not enough to eat, chasing that dream that brought them here. And if you can tough it out for two years, I think you'll probably be here to stay.

The magical formula to succeed in this town is one that rears its head whenever times are toughest, like now. You have to BELIEVE at your deepest core, that whatever things look like now, it's gonna turn around for you. Something's gonna happen. Some combination of circumstances, some chance meeting, some accident of preparedness meets luck is going to fall into your lap and voila, you are back on top. That is, after all, how this town really works.

You have to believe in yourself with a fierceness that would make others quake. You have to keep plugging away when, in any other city, it would seem like every single door is closed to you. When you have absolutely no reasonable hope left, you have to pull more hope from your inner reserves.

Although the flip side of this is that the town is then also filled with people who are never going to succeed at screenwriting or acting or directing like they think they are, but they plug away anyway.

What one discovers as one walks this perilous path is that if you truly love something, it's something you HAVE to do, no matter the odds, no matter what anyone else tells you, no matter how people like you (as old as you, as heavy as you, as weird as you, as whatever as you) never can succeed at this. Case in point: who would've thought a few years ago that Mickey Rourke would be an Oscar-nominee?

And that is it. That is what drives me. This almost pathological impulse to continue when everything in the world tells me not to. To believe deeply that things will turn around. That those closed doors will open up, that that guy's heart may turn around one day, and even if I try and try and try and nothing happens, it's all about the journey, anyway, right?

That, my friends, is the essence of succeeding in Los Angeles. I am truly home.

The Ills of Detroit

OK, someone asked me to comment on this subject, so here goes.

Like most ex-Detroiters, it's not a blanket thing for me. I can't write about the stuff I hate without also writing about the stuff I love and vice versa. It's a complex passion. After all, the city of my birth gave me a heart that beats with the music of Motown and Iggy Pop. But then, it also gave me the Joe Lewis fist. It's like that.

So:

Reasons Why I Left Detroit

Joe Lewis Fist

No Hudsons

No Stroh's Brewery

No Tiger Stadium

Poletown leveled for a Cadillac plant, later left vacant

Everyone movin to the suburbs

Vacant houses

the "People Mover"

the great architecture left vacant

Windsor doesn't let girls in strip clubs, the bastards

the series of bad mayors

Reasons I Love Detroit

Greektown

Mextown

the Fisher Building

Motown/Iggy/etc.

the great architecture

Attic Theatre

the bridge and the tunnel

the Tigers!

the Red Wings!

it's home.

So many articles and treatises written now about the death of newspapers. This is a commentary, partially, about one of them, written by John Battelle, formerly of WIRED magazine (http://battellemedia.com/archives/004781.php). 

In the thick of this first in a series of "death of newspaper" articles, he mentions how much Google wants to help the newspaper industry. They have money. They could give them money. All of this ignores what seems to be so very obvious. Why is no one seeing it? They state the facts, then they come back with: but what can we do about newspapers?

The facts being that everything about a newspaper that people liked/wanted, they can now find easier on the Web (classified ads, sports results, even breaking news, thanks to Twitter). Print costs much more than any webpage. And on and on.

So the answer seems simple. Close up the newspapers and move on. Was technological change ALWAYS this hard? Or, if you are a major newspaper like the New York Times, take the necessary steps, which they seem to be starting to do, into the online space. Make widgets. Give me a usable iPhone app with your newspaper on it. Make a newspaper viable for those who now live online.

As long as you continue to try to push square pegs into round holes, you'll continue to get nowhere, and technology will march on past you. It already is. People go with what's easy and cheap. Period. Especially in this Depression we are in.

And now you're going to start whining about the loss of "quality journalism" and "ethics" because we're on the Web. Well, I'll clue you. There are plenty of real journalists and ethical people out here in the Wild Wild Web. In fact, I would argue there are MORE people who hold politicians' feet to the fire out here. There are people who care. People who aren't fat and cushy from a cake job, but who've had to reinvent themselves, even daring to do it for no money (as many podcasters, myself included, have done). They do it because they have a passion about it. They do it because it needs to be done. They do it because they have a voice that no one else has.

Isn't that what newspapers used to be about? Where was the newspapers' hue and cry when habeas corpus got taken away from us in the last Administration? Just as one example?

Nobody sobbed into their beers when the grammophone died. Or when Betamax became a useless technology. Newspapers are gone, people. It's time for them either to get their butts onto the Web, where they can still make a difference, or move on.

Nothing is going to make newsprint and its delivery viable again as a business model. Realize it. Google should spend that money they want to throw at newpapers to create a real, viable newspaper on the Web. Cause people will never stop seeking fresh news. They have an insatiable desire to find out what's happening around them, in the world, which has gotten increasingly smaller.

The sad thing for the newspaper industry is that technologies like Facebook and MySpace and Twitter have made us realize that we can connect with people easier and faster and in more real ways than a traditional newspaper can offer us. And the news we find there is no less valid. In fact, it's more real because it hasn't been filtered through the corporation first.

So enough of all this whining. Let's move on. Newspapers are on the Web. Long live newspapers.