Alexander

I love this disc. The version of "Body and Soul" is a standout.

I admit it. I'm a fan of both Elton John and Rod Stewart's '70s work. I own all of Elton's records from "Empty Sky" though "Rock of the Westies," as well as a greatest hits collection covering the late '70s and early '80s and his last three albums (something of a return to form in which he collaborates with Bernie Taupin). I have both of Rod's albums with Jeff Beck, all of his work with Faces and two of his '70s solo albums ("Every Picture Tells A Story" and "Never A Dull Moment"). Both of these artists were AMAZINGLY popular in the '70s and deservedly so. Their albums are fantastic (my favorite Elton albums are "Madman Across the Water," "Tumbleweed Connection" and "Honky Chateau"). Nowadays, the general consensus is that both of them suck. And I don't dispute that, to a point (as I said, Elton has returned to form on his last three albums). I have no interest in Stewart's hackwork from the late-'70s to the present (including his god-awful "standards" albums). Elton became admittedly slight during the '80s (although "Empty Garden" ranks among his best work) and his work in the '90s was painfully bad (those horrible "Lion King" songs!). The thing that bugs me, however, is that neither of these men get the respect they deserve for when they *were* good! The Elton John/Bernie Taupin collaboration is among the best pop songwriting since the break-up of the Beatles (in fact Elton FAR outclassed Paul McCartney's solo work in the '70s). And Rod was a powerhouse in the late '60s and early '70s. Those Faces albums are amazing. As far as I can tell, the thing that led to Rod's downfall was the ending of HIS partnership with Ron Wood (who is a fantastic guitarist, and it's a damn shame that he's stood in Keith Richards' shadow all these years). Once he starting making music without Woodsie, it all went to hell. It seems to me that both Elton and Rod are analagous to Stevie Wonder (who also had a brilliant career in the '60s and '70s, followed by a bottoming-out in the '80s). Remember how Jack Black (in "High Fidelity") mocks a man for wanting to buy "I Just Called To Say I Love You." Yet people recognize how brilliant Stevie was once-upon-a-time and he is tremendously respected. I would argue that the best of Elton John and Rod Stewart's work in the '70s was every bit the equal of Stevie's best work. So why don't Elton and Rod get the same respect? Any thoughts? I'm curious to hear what other people think (especially those who don't share my interest in these performers).

"Song for My Father" was the album that got me into jazz in the first place, so I have to go with that...

Same here too!

Are there any really good films about the Japanese occupation? I'd love to see one! Look, I'm not saying "Japanese: Good; Americans: Baaaaad." I'm saying that the film offers a very unique perspective, and that it calls for a little HUMILITY in our assessment of America's victory in this battle. I'm not saying we were wrong to fight and try to win, just that THIS particular victory should stir some sober reflection. We seem to have this attitude that war is like a football game. It's not. There are human beings on both sides who lost their lives. Frankly, I don't understand how anybody can live through that and keep their sanity. Actually I have seen one film about the Japanese occupation that is from the Chinese perspective and it is called "Red Sorghum" by the acclaimed Chinese director Zhang Yimou. I don't think it is on DVD and that is a shame. Japanese are portrayed as bloodthirsty killers who delight in torturing the civilian population. Sounds interesting! Perhaps I can find it on VHS. Thanks for the heads up!

"Strong Caleb, did you just make the best omelette ever during the commerical break?" "I sure did!"

Why creepy? Are you saying that there are some things that fiction cannot handle? Or should not? Nabokov allowed us to see the world from the point of view of a pedophile. Why couldn't somebody else do the same with a Nazi? Shouldn't we WANT to understand the perspective of the socially maladjusted? I will say, right here and now, that I would read a book or watch a movie from the point of view of ANY character, so long as the book is well written or the film is well made. I would gladly read a book from the point of view of a Holocaust denier. No book is bad if it is well written. Stop with these red herrings. Your review of the movie went beyond simply "viewing from a different perspective" or aesthetic appreciation. You were ASHAMED of the American flag going up at Iwo Jima, you derived ENJOYMENT from seeing the Japanese side painted positively and the American side negatively. I'm done here. People can make up their own minds whether that's creepy or not. Guy I said that I was ashamed *given the circumstances.* Would you salute the flag with a tear in your eye right after you'd just watched (and sympathized) with Japanese characters getting their asses stomped for two hours and change? I also watched "Flags" and it was a very different experience. That's the point of the film. It's SUPPOSED to make you feel a little guilty. Jeez. As for my ENJOYMENT, I said that I enjoyed seeing the fresh perspective. It was DIFFERENT watching a war movie where Americans are the bad guys. As for my take on the film, ask someone else who saw it: It is not my INTERPRETATION that the Japanese treat an American prisoner with respect and kindness and that the Americans brutally slaughter two Japanese prisoners. That's in the movie. You have a problem with that, take it up with Clint Eastwood.

Why creepy? Are you saying that there are some things that fiction cannot handle? Or should not? Nabokov allowed us to see the world from the point of view of a pedophile. Why couldn't somebody else do the same with a Nazi? Shouldn't we WANT to understand the perspective of the socially maladjusted? I will say, right here and now, that I would read a book or watch a movie from the point of view of ANY character, so long as the book is well written or the film is well made. I would gladly read a book from the point of view of a Holocaust denier. No book is bad if it is well written.

I'd be really curious to read your review of a movie that took the Nazi perspective. Guy I've seen a few ("Das Boot" for one) and I think that they're very interesting. Remember, a German perspective is not a "Nazi perspective" necessarily. Many German soldiers were regular guys who were either pressed in to service, or who genuinely wanted to serve their country (nothing wrong with that, right?). The Nazis were something else entirely, but I'd still love to see a film that takes their perspective too.

So that's what you think this is all about? Not "offending" the Japanese? This film shows heroism on the Japanese side. No American film (that I know of) has showed such a thing before. And this is just a sop to Politcal Correctness? Is that what you think? Terribly sorry Saint Alexander, I was just adding my little bit of misplaced whimsy to your monumental discovery that during wartime we tend to dehumanize the enemy. I realize that you must have left the theatre after Eastwood's latest masterpiece feeling the need to proclaim this important truth to us enfeebled yahoos. I understand how important the message is and how we all need to run (not walk) to the theatre to become as noble as you undoubtedly are. BTW "Tora Tora Tora" in 1970 was also partly told from the Japanese perspective, but of course it offered no great universal truths for deep thinkers and didn't really send anyone out of the theatre feeling the need to preach how like really gross war tends to be. So, because you disagree with my take on the film, that gives you license to be a complete dick? What seems very interesting to me is that the standard by which greatness in cinema is measured this year is whether or not the film reveals great "Truth" with a capital "T". If the film fails to present some original insight into human nature or our national character, we deem the film a failure (and, of course, anybody who actually likes the film and is interested in what it does have to say is silly, since the film has told us nothing we didn't already know). "Borat" is a good example. I liked "Borat," myself, but a lot of people (on this very board, in fact) responded thus: "Oh, dear. Baron Cohen has revealed that some Americans are ignorant, xenophobic, racist, sexist, anti-semitic boobs. Tell us something we DON'T know! Yawn." Apparently, Baron Cohen's mission in "Borat" was not to be funny, but to come down from the mountain top (a la Moses) with a great truth that would make his film worth viewing. But since his insight is so...so unoriginal...well, how can anybody stomach such a common observation? So it is, too, with "Iwo Jima." War is hell. Where have we heard that one before? Call me up when something INTERESTING happens. I didn't like the film because it revealed something to me that I'd never seen before. I liked it because it presented a perspective not often seen in American films. And because it was well-acted and well-filmed. Did it teach me that war is hell? No more than "Hotel Rwanda" taught me that genocide is bad. Did I already know that? Yes, but I still thought it was a great film. And, yes, I did enjoy the fact that Allmighty America was revealed in its socks and underwear, so to speak. I'm of the opinion that America needs to see it's faults and foibles writ large from time to time. That's how we learn. In "Iwo Jima" we see how America is perceived by an enemy at war, and frankly it's not a pretty picture. I don't want to live in the country with the biggest dick in the world, do you? Like I said you're a noble truth teller. Though I'm not quite what dicks have to do with anything, but I'm not on your level. I guess I should go to move movies. What's a "move movie?" Must be a DICK thing...

I don't watch "24" myself, but I do watch "Idol" with my wife. It's a bonding experience.

So that's what you think this is all about? Not "offending" the Japanese? This film shows heroism on the Japanese side. No American film (that I know of) has showed such a thing before. And this is just a sop to Politcal Correctness? Is that what you think? Terribly sorry Saint Alexander, I was just adding my little bit of misplaced whimsy to your monumental discovery that during wartime we tend to dehumanize the enemy. I realize that you must have left the theatre after Eastwood's latest masterpiece feeling the need to proclaim this important truth to us enfeebled yahoos. I understand how important the message is and how we all need to run (not walk) to the theatre to become as noble as you undoubtedly are. BTW "Tora Tora Tora" in 1970 was also partly told from the Japanese perspective, but of course it offered no great universal truths for deep thinkers and didn't really send anyone out of the theatre feeling the need to preach how like really gross war tends to be. So, because you disagree with my take on the film, that gives you license to be a complete dick? What seems very interesting to me is that the standard by which greatness in cinema is measured this year is whether or not the film reveals great "Truth" with a capital "T". If the film fails to present some original insight into human nature or our national character, we deem the film a failure (and, of course, anybody who actually likes the film and is interested in what it does have to say is silly, since the film has told us nothing we didn't already know). "Borat" is a good example. I liked "Borat," myself, but a lot of people (on this very board, in fact) responded thus: "Oh, dear. Baron Cohen has revealed that some Americans are ignorant, xenophobic, racist, sexist, anti-semitic boobs. Tell us something we DON'T know! Yawn." Apparently, Baron Cohen's mission in "Borat" was not to be funny, but to come down from the mountain top (a la Moses) with a great truth that would make his film worth viewing. But since his insight is so...so unoriginal...well, how can anybody stomach such a common observation? So it is, too, with "Iwo Jima." War is hell. Where have we heard that one before? Call me up when something INTERESTING happens. I didn't like the film because it revealed something to me that I'd never seen before. I liked it because it presented a perspective not often seen in American films. And because it was well-acted and well-filmed. Did it teach me that war is hell? No more than "Hotel Rwanda" taught me that genocide is bad. Did I already know that? Yes, but I still thought it was a great film. And, yes, I did enjoy the fact that Allmighty America was revealed in its socks and underwear, so to speak. I'm of the opinion that America needs to see it's faults and foibles writ large from time to time. That's how we learn. In "Iwo Jima" we see how America is perceived by an enemy at war, and frankly it's not a pretty picture. I don't want to live in the country with the biggest dick in the world, do you?

So that's what you think this is all about? Not "offending" the Japanese? This film shows heroism on the Japanese side. No American film (that I know of) has showed such a thing before. And this is just a sop to Politcal Correctness? Is that what you think?

You'd think so, wouldn't you? And yet our Glorious Leader continues to harp on "Evil-Doers." Go figure...

Are there any really good films about the Japanese occupation? I'd love to see one! Look, I'm not saying "Japanese: Good; Americans: Baaaaad." I'm saying that the film offers a very unique perspective, and that it calls for a little HUMILITY in our assessment of America's victory in this battle. I'm not saying we were wrong to fight and try to win, just that THIS particular victory should stir some sober reflection. We seem to have this attitude that war is like a football game. It's not. There are human beings on both sides who lost their lives. Frankly, I don't understand how anybody can live through that and keep their sanity.

As I said in the "Iwo Jima" thread, I'm very much looking forward to this.

Yes, I'm looking forward to that one too. It was a close call between the two films (also I want to see "The Last King of Scotland"), but I decided to go with the "Iwo Jima" and I don't regret it.

Exactly. That was my point. Not that the Japanese were good and the Americans were bad. I know about Nanking and the Batan Death March. It's just the American films have never shown THIS side of the Japanese before. The HUMAN side.

I saw this on Friday night, and it's taken me a couple of days to digest it. First of all, I think that it's one of the most powerful anti-war films ever made. It really captures the insanity of war. I also think that it was very brave (and also the right thing to do) for Eastwood to make the film entirely in Japanese (with English subtitles). The performances are extraordinary throughout, especially Ken Wantabe as the general with a doomed mission. The film's viewpoint, showing a WWII battle from the Japanese POV, is unprecidented as far as I know (especially in an American film). And it's a real eye-opener. After so much "greatest generation" talk, it's interesting to see the Japanese portrayed in such a sympathetic light (I've read that there has been some protest. One commentator I read actually claimed that making such a film is an act of treason. I see if I can find the citation). The film's depiction undercuts the accepted notion that Imperial Japan was a bastion of homogeneous group-think. While most of the officers generally parrot the party-line (that the Americans are weak and that it is an honor to die for the Empire), the film shows far more diversity of thought among the enlisted men (at least one of whom is determined NOT to die for his Empire). I'm sure that this is far closer to the truth than what we've been told in the past. Similarly, it was very interesting to see the Americans as the enemy "other." For the most part, Americans in this film take the form of death-dealing planes, an armada of warships and faceless grunts. In one scene, a wounded American is captured and treated by a Japanese officer and his men. The officer (a former Olympian Gold-Medalist who had visited the U.S. during the '30s) speaks English and has a wonderful conversation with the wounded man, who dies soon after. When two Japanese soldiers are taken by the Americans (while trying to surrender), the grunts (who do not speak a word of Japanese) mistake the talk of the two starving, exhausted men (who are actually talking about looking forward to a decent meal) for plotting, and murder the men in cold blood. What an amazing contrast with what we've seen in so many war films of the past (where the Japanese are heartless brutes and the Americans are merciful)! The film also makes one thing abudently clear: The American victory at Iwo Jima was hardly glorious. The Japanese were hopelessly out-numbered and out-gunned (they had NO air or sea support as most of Japan's remaining ships and planes had been recalled to defend the mainland). The Japanese were dying of starvation, thirst, and dysentary. The film does not show the raising of the American flag (which was covered in the inferior companion film, "Flags of Our Fathers"), and this is a good thing, because I think I would have been ashamed to view it in these circumstances. Crushing a handful of dying men is hardly a great victory. I urge everyone to see this (even if you skipped "Flags"). It is very likely the one film that Eastwood (the filmmaker, rather than the actor) will be remembered for. Some Iwo stats, btw: American air forces pounded Iwo in the longest sustained aerial offensive of the war. "No other island received as much preliminary pounding as did Iwo Jima." . . . Admiral Nimitz, CINPAC Twenty-one thousand defenders of Japanese soil, burrowed in the volcanic rock of Iwo Jima, anxiously awaited the American invaders. The US sent more Marines to Iwo than to any other battle, 110,000 Marines in 880 Ships. The convoy of 880 US Ships sailed from Hawaii to Iwo in 40 days. It was the largest armada invasion up to that time in the Pacific War.

Journey was quite popular for quite a few years, actually... But anyway, per Wikipedia: Like him or not, he's got cred. Yeah, he and Paula were the judges I'd actually heard of before Idol started. Paula had her pop career, of course, but "Randy Jackson" was more of a name I recognized from liner notes. It actually took me a while to make the connection, though. Once I found out I was all, "Oh! THAT Randy Jackson!"

What bugs me is this: These people (the horrible singers) may be deluded when it comes to their own ability, but the Idol producers have allowed them to pass not one, but TWO (and maybe even three) auditions before they get to strut their stuff for Randy, Paula and Simon. Now honestly, if you had stood in line for days and had passed two auditions, wouldn't you get the impression that you were pretty good? These people have been lead down the garden path, only to have a ten ton weight dropped on their heads when the reach the end. However bad, self-deluded, or even mean-spirited some of these people are, they certainly don't deserve to be given the "bait-and-switch" treatment like this. Basically, the Idol producers only outright reject the mediocre. They let the very good and the very bad through, and that really sucks.

I've never been a regular viewer, mainly because I just don't watch much TV at all (just "The Simpsons" and "House") Whenever I see it, I love it, but I've never made it a priority. I know the first season much better than any that followed. This has been a disappointment to some of my students. I do very good impressions of Stan and Kyle, Mr. Mackie, Mr. Hankie, Mr. Garrison (and Mr. Hat) and (ESPECIALLY) Cartman. Wherever I sub, my Cartman impression quickly becomes legend and I get frequent requests from both teachers and students. However, students are always asking me to do characters from after I stopped watching the show. I've never seen Towlie, for example, so I don't know what he sounds like. I've also only rarely seen Butters, so I can't do his voice either. I don't know if I've ever mentioned my mimicry on the board prior to this. I know it sounds like I'm just bragging, but I've always been a very good impressionist. People are often impressed by this talent I have (I only rarely have to work to develop a voice. Most of them come quite naturally to me) and many have urged me to go into voice acting for this reason. I do quite good impressions of Bush and Clinton (these are very popular among students), as well as Reagan, Nixon, Kissinger, Arnold Schwartzenegger, Sly Stallone, Jimmy Stewart, Sean Connery, Robert DeNiro, Woody Allen, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson (although almost anyone can do Jack. The trick is to do Jack well), Cary Grant, William Shatner, Christopher Lloyd (both as Reverand Jim and Doc Brown), James Brown, Elvis Presley, Marlon Brando (in "On The Waterfront" and "The Godfather"), Ray Charles, and several others. I also can do a lot of character voices like Bugs Bunny, Porky Pig, Homer Simpson, Kermit the Frog, etc. This is no idle boast. I've been doing these voices my whole life, and I know I'm good. It's a very useful tool for a substitute teacher. I can use it to entertain students when a lesson plan fails to cover the whole period, and I've used it as a "reward" for when the students keep it together for a whole period. The big problem I have is that once it gets out that I can do impressions, people want to hear all of the voices I can do. Even once I've established that I can do a dozen or more voices, people are always disappointed when I can't do the one specific voice they wanted me to do. Kids are forever asking for "Family Guy" characters, and I have to point out that I've never really seen the show, so I don't know what Stewie sounds like (I've seen it enough to know who he is, but not enough to be able to hear his voice in my head). It's a weird ability to have, kind of like being double-jointed (which I am as well). I didn't ask for it. I didn't really have to work at it. I just opened my mouth one day, and out came these voices!

I'm less familiar with the Poets of Rhythm, but I LOVE Sharon Jones and the Dap-Kings. In addition to both of her albums, I'm also getting into the singles on the Daptone lable. Great stuff! Binky Griptite's Christmas single, "World of Love" b/w "Stone Soul Christmas" is out of sight! I also got Sharon's non-LP single "What If We All Stopped Paying Taxes." Wonderful stuff! Miss Sharon Jones and the late, great Soul Brother Number One!!!

I have it, and it's fantastic. Interestingly enough, it's taken from the March 6 & 7, 1970 Fillmore show (I'm not sure which one). The opening act was the Miles Davis Quintet (with Wayne Shorter and Chick Corea). The March 7th Miles show was recorded and documented as "It's About That Time: Live at The Fillmore East." Put on the Miles and follow it up with the Neil! It's almost like being there!

No question. My favorite is his rant about customers. Having worked in the service industry for five years, I know EXACTLY where he's coming from...