Peanut Butter, Ambrosia of the Roz

By Roz Young, January 24 2012

This week I was twittering and noticed that peanut butter, the very spread of the Gods, was trending. Sweet zombie Jeebus, what was this about… Turns out, January 24th is US National PB day! Well, if we don’t have such a glorious holiday in Canada, I don’t want to live here anymore.


So, I’m also celebrating January 24th as Rozlynal Peanut Butter Day of Holy Wondrousness. From now on, this day will be full of all things PB, next year especially when I’m more prepared and don’t just recognize the day by eating it out of the jar with a spoon. Did you know I have 4 different jars of peanut butter in my house? Now you do. And I love them all.


As I scientist, I naturally wanted to know more about this magical object of my eternal worship, so I read all about peanut butter. Fascinating. Proudly of note, it was patented in Canada by Marcellus Edson, and is full of protein, vitamins and anti-oxidants. Yay! But then, the Wikipedia article started to get weird. Like, peanut butter is also sold mixed with “chocolate, jelly (jam), fluff, and the like”. Whoa, what? Fluff? Is that a food or an edible product of some kind? Like marshmallows? I started to get suspicious that a peanutbutterologist did not write or edit this article. I also feel like an awful lot of things could be in that category of “the like”… Like what? I must know!

Ok, so I kept going and apparently, I mean we always take Wikipedia with a grain of salt, but “Plumpy’nut” is a peanut butter product used to fight malnutrition during famines. The mental giant behind calling famine-aid “plumpy’nut” should be sacked. That’s like bringing antibiotics to an outbreak and calling them “Sniffles’Be’Gone” or “Chicken Soup for the Infection Pills”… Maybe it just caught on and stuck. Or it’s popular with the kiddies, like cholera. I guess if you are dying of starvation, a fun name for your protein source is better than a dry sounding, scientifically accurate description of what you are ingesting. I wonder if Plumpy’nut has extra fluff in it. Maybe that’s called Fluffy’nut.

Then I got up from my computer and went to the peanut butter jar and continued to eat it with a spoon. I pondered the peanut butter clinging to the metallic surface and savoured it’s sweet and salty nuttiness. This stuff is incredible. It’s good on bread, on crackers, in cookies, as cookies, with bananas, in ice cream, in stir fry, and with raw veggies. Just awesome. You should join me next year and we can bake cookies and have a peanut satay sauce all over… I can’t think of anything that wouldn’t work here. I decided to search for a PB pie recipe, and low and behold, the most magical of all things together with PIE. Courtesy of allrecipes.com, the easiest and most delicious sounding pie EVER…

No Bake Peanut Butter Pie

Prep Time: 20 Minutes, Ready In: 2 Hours 20 Minutes
"Creamy, sweet and luscious, this peanut butter pie is real easy to make. Softened cream cheese, confectioners ' sugar, whipped topping and creamy or chunky peanut butter are blended and poured into a graham cracker shell to be frozen."


INGREDIENTS:
1 (8 ounce) package cream cheese
1 1/2 cups confectioners' sugar
1 cup peanut butter
1 cup milk
1 (16 ounce) package frozen whipped topping, thawed
2 (9 inch) prepared graham cracker crusts


DIRECTIONS:
1. Beat together cream cheese and confectioners' sugar. Mix in peanut butter and milk. Beat until smooth. Fold in whipped topping.2. Spoon into two 9 inch graham cracker pie shells; cover, and freeze until firm.

New or Used: The Sequel

By Matt Baker, January 31 2012

So the other day I wrote an open letter to game developers in defence of used games and, somewhat surprisingly, some people have actually read it. Not only that, but there has been a fair amount of discussion about the subject on Twitter lately. As a result of some of the responses I got and some of the stuff that I read online I have decided to revisit and clarify/correct some of the things I said. Additionally I want to suggest some solutions that might be amenable to both sides of the argument.

First off: the comparisons I made. I talked about getting games for $20 instead of $60. Clearly this is not the same game. When a game is brand new it tends to sell used for only five to ten dollars cheaper, which is not enough of a difference to entice me to buy used. I would rather pay the extra $10 for the new game. However, if there is a new game in a series that looks interesting but I have never played any games in the series I may opt for a used copy of an earlier game. And even then, I’d prefer to buy the earlier game new, but it is with old games where the real value of used games lies. By the time a publisher drops a price to $20 you can probably get it used for half that. I know it is still only a $10 difference but at that price point it seems like so much more.

Now I can spend all the time I want complaining about prices and developers can complain about used games, but that is never going to get us anywhere. So I have spent some time thinking about this and I want to put forward some potential solutions. I would love to get people from both sides involved in a discussion and tossing some ideas around.

I think that digital distribution is the most promising solution. After all, if people are just downloading their games they don’t even have a copy to sell (and it’s more environmentally friendly, to boot!). But this has a caveat: if developers really want online distribution to work then buying the game online has to be cheaper. As it is, buying a new release through Steam, PSN, or XBL costs the same as buying the disc. If I’m going to spend that much money I might as well get a version that comes with a lovely copy I can put on my shelf or maybe even sell/trade for another game down the line. Let’s be clear though, I’m not talking about making the game five, or even ten, dollars cheaper. It has to be cheap enough to separate people from their desire to have a physical copy (and let’s face it, there are a lot of collectors in the nerd community) and to compensate for not being able to recoup some money by selling the game (for those who aren’t collectors). I think it needs to be a minimum of $20 cheaper if developers are really serious. I could be wrong, but I don’t think this should be too much of a hardship for developers as it virtually eliminates distribution expenses and much of the overhead costs. At the very least, it should significantly reduce these costs.

Unfortunately, for the time being it is still standard to buy physical copies of games, but there are still some things developers can do to curb used games sales without alienating their fan base. There has been a lot of talk about “incentivising” purchasing games new and I think this holds a lot of promise, but again, it has to be done right. I think it is important that whatever incentives are used, they are a reward for buying new, not a punishment for renting or buying used. Granted, this is a pretty fine line and it could be argued that it is just a matter of perspective, but I think there are a couple ways that it can be done that most people will agree are rewards, not punishment (some people are always going to complain, but you can’t please everyone). Some might ask, “why should the developer care if they are punishing people who buy used?” and this is an understandable question. To me, it all boils down to respect. Developers need gamers to respect their work by making sure they get paid for it and gamers need developers to respect the fact that there is nothing legally wrong with what the gamers are doing. Remember, they are still spending their money on the game. This shouldn’t be punished. However, developers have every right to try to sway the gamers’ choice of where that money goes.

So how can developers sway the choice without punishing people for making the “wrong” one? First of all, no codes to unlock stuff with the initial release (like in Arkham City with the Catwoman content). If it was important enough to the game experience that it was initially just part of the game but then a decision is made to make it DLC, then you are punishing people, not rewarding them. Yes, you can play through the game without the Catwoman missions, but they were clearly intended to be part of the full experience. This is in contrast to most DLC, which you would never really notice the absence of. Second: if it comes on the disc you shouldn’t have to unlock it. I haven’t heard of anybody doing this, but that would just be awful.

Although I may not be a fan of how the Catwoman situation went down, I do think that a free DLC pack has a lot of potential as a reward. A better way to do it, however, would be a code for DLC of your choosing or even for a specific value, like $10. Personally, I think the freedom to choose your DLC reward would make a better incentive than having to go with specific content. The developers could also have an exclusive DLC pack for new buyers, but I don’t think this is as good an idea. While it would feel very rewarding to those who bought the game new it rules out the option of making any money from those who bought used.

Personally, I think the best idea I have come up with is a discount on DLC for people who buy new. The basic idea would be that you would have an account with the distributor (e.g. EA) and when you buy the game you enter a one-time use code that gives you a discount on any DLC for that game. The best part about this is that the reward can even be scaled based on how much you spent on the new game by using the date at which you register the code. Let’s say you bought the game in the first year when it is still $60 (or before whenever the price is dropped), then you get 20% off DLC. If you wait to buy it and register your code after the price drops to $40 you still get a discount but now it is only 10%. If you wait longer still and buy it at $20 you just get $5 worth of DLC. As long as the developer doesn’t just raise the cost of DLC, everybody wins. Everybody gets the proper, full game and has access to all DLC, but the prospect of repeated discounts instead of a single download will be more enticing to buy new even if the actual dollar value ends up being about the same. Not only that, but there are a lot of people who probably don’t take advantage of DLC because they don’t want to pay extra after they’ve already spent a bunch of money, who will be drawn in to spending that extra cash by the discount. As for people who bought used, they still have the option to buy the DLC at full price, because I’m guessing there are also a lot of people who buy the game used so they don’t feel bad about spending extra money on DLC.

Well that’s what I have come up with. What other ideas are out there? Feel free to share your ideas or comment on these ones in the comment section, especially if you work for a game developer.

Cheers,
Matt

New or used: An open letter to game developers

By Matt Baker, January 26 2012

Dear Game Developer,

This is a debate that has run rampant through the interweb tubes, bowling over the kittehs and owls contained therein, for so long that I’ve always felt there was no need for me to blog my opinion because who really cares what I think anyway? But then this morning I saw a Twitter link to an article about how the upcoming Xbox 720 may reject used games and the fiery inferno of my passion was stoked. So here we are and, on the ever so slight chance that anyone with the vaguest influence on the gaming industry might ever read this, I’m going to offer up my humble opinion.

Before I get in to why I think the used game market is actually good for game developers I want to talk a bit about my own motivations for buying used games. So, first things first, let me reassure you, mighty game developer, it is not out of spite. I like games and they bring me many hours of enjoyment. You should be rewarded for this. However, the game market is kind of flooded and I have a finite amount of money, so choices have to be made and I’m going to choose what is best for me. If I can get one new game for $60 or three old games for the same amount, I think the choice is pretty obvious. Now, I understand that as far as you, the game developer, are concerned I might as well not have bought anything because you didn’t get any of that money, but what you have to remember is that even if I could only buy new games I’d still only have $60, so there’s a 2/3 chance that you are not getting that money anyway.

Ah, you say, but there is a 1/3 chance you do get the money so you are still ahead. And that is true. Or at least it would be if I only ever bought used games. But I, like most gamers, buy a mix of new and used games. If I’m really excited about a game I’ll buy it new. I mostly buy used games to try things that I missed when they first came out or that seemed interesting but not good enough to spend $60 on. The end result of this is that if they were not available used, I just would not buy them. So you are in exactly the same position you would be in with the used game market available. Or at least so it would seem. But I would argue that this is not actually true. Getting rid of the used game market is actually going to move you backwards.

Remember how I said I buy new games that I’m excited about? How do you think I get excited about them? By playing the used games (or games from the library, which are pretty much the same to you monetarily) that I missed out on when they were new or that I’d just not been interested enough in to spend $60. I got Batman: Arkham Asylum from the library and liked it so much I bought it on Steam and then bought Arkham City new for my PS3. I got the PSP Resistance and Killzone games used. They kicked ass so I bought Resistance 3 and Killzone 3 new. I’ve always kind of ignored Halo, but recently I bought Halo 3 used and now I am totally on board to buy Halo 4 new whenever it comes out. And this doesn’t just work for sequels. I bought Gran Theft Auto 3 used and it was ok, but I wasn’t in to it enough to buy the later ones new (or even used). However when Rockstar made Red Dead Redemption and it was like GTA but a western (which I love) I was familiar enough with the idea that I bought it new. And it was fucking awesome so then I bought LA Noire new, which was also fucking awesome. So now when GTA5 comes out, I’ll probably buy it new, even though I was not a huge fan of GTA3. You see how this works? If I hadn’t had a more affordable way to access these games I’d never have bought all those new games. So by quashing the used games market you are actually behind where you are now. And that isn’t even taking in to account the fact that you would have also pissed me off so I’d probably just start spending my fun money somewhere else anyway. And I haven’t even touched on people who buy new games and then sell them to fund the purchase of more new games.

Which brings me to my next point. If I have purchased an item, what right do you have to tell me what I can do with this item? You didn’t rent it to me, you sold it to me. It is standard practice in pretty much everything but the entertainment industry that after you purchase something it is yours to do with as you please, including selling it. I read another blog that compared a game to a lamp and I like this comparison. You don’t see lamp companies trying to shut down Kijiji or thrift stores because they stop people from buying new lamps. Ford is not out there trying to shut down used car dealerships. How are games different? And it is not just game developers with this odd point of view – it seems to be common to most of the entertainment industry. You are acting like Harry Potter goblins with the idea that even if you sell something it still actually belongs to you and should only go back to you once the customer is done with it.

I understand that you want to curb piracy and I totally agree with that (although I don’t believe that it is actually a big problem for games, especially on consoles – I know lots of people who have pirated movies and music but not a single person who pirates games). The music, film, and games industries go on and on about piracy and that is understandable; you worked hard on your product, why should some people get to cheat the system and enjoy it for free? Although that does remind me of a time I saw Douglas Coupland speak and he brought up an interesting point – musicians and filmmakers complain that people are circumventing purchasing their products is wrong but authors have to deal with libraries, the entire point of which is to read something without buying it and they are legal. But let’s not get too sidetracked here. Pretty much everyone has pirated something at some point, but I honestly believe that it is wrong and I stick to acquiring things legally whenever possible. And the fact remains, the used game market is entirely legal. People are still paying their hard earned money to enjoy something you made. Yes that money is not going directly to you, but the goodwill from that enjoyment is and chances are good that it will lead to future new game purchases. So try and remember, before you go alienating me and my gaming brethren, you can make it so I can’t get cheap games but I won’t have more money and I willhave less goodwill. Actually, you know what? Go ahead and do what you want because when I stop buying games that will free up a lot of time and money and there is a whole world of other things for me to enjoy.

Sincerely,
Matt

Congrats to The Artist and A List of Other Amazing Pups in Movies

By Roz Young, January 16 2011


First of all, I haven’t finished gushing about The Artist, Golden Globe winner of Best Comedy or Musical Film, Best Original Score and Best Actor in a Comedy or Musical Film, Jean Dujardin. Stealing the show and my heart, is Uggie, the Jack Russell Terrier from the film and winner of the 2011 Cannes Film Festival Palm Dog Award. I was inspired by Uggie to compile a list of other fantastic puppies from the movies. Sure, dogs are cute. But there is also an amazing and special kind of friendship that exists between people and pups. It’s beautiful. Dogs are both strong and fragile creatures that protect and need us. Although they are only with us a short time, these fantastic companions are unforgettable. Performances by some dogs have been incredible and these particular puppies came to mind:

Uggie (The Artist), this year’s big winner, he was disqualified from the Oscars because his motivation is primarily sausages. Reading the Palm Dog winner list has me desperate to see The Cave of the Yellow Dog, a Mongolian-German film.


Laika (Le Havre) received a special Jury Prize in the Palm Dog contest this year and was a special part of her film. I’ve been calling this fantastic movie the “French Up”, which is silly but fun. It’s a great film, warm and touching, and you should see it. (The animated dog Dug from Up also won a Palm Dog in 2009, in case you were curious.)


Beethoven – hey, not a great movie but the dogs are crazy cute. You remember these movies, I know you do. And you asked your mom if you could have a dog too. She said no.


Homeward Bound puppies, we knew and loved you. Matt particularly liked the sassy cat, but this list isn’t about kittehs. Still, shout out to these cuties for being a part of my childhood.


Otis (Milo and Otis) was another dog from my early years watching movies with my sister. We must have watched Milo and Otis go on adventures a hundred times. I am not exaggerating. It’s a Japanese movie, which is weird, and there were some allegations of animal cruelty that thankfully went unsubstantiated. Normally I don’t find pugs to be the cutest of dogs, but they have such expressive faces that I think they make great actors. Still, big fuzzy goldens for me.


Benji is THE film dog, in my opinion. With 8 movies from 1974 to 2004, Benji was played by a bunch of different puppies, the first of which was a shelter pup named Higgins. Higgins had a daughter, Benjean, who played Benji in the next few movies. I can’t even keep writing because I can’t tear my eyes away from the look on this guy’s face. /heartmelt


Terry (The Wizard of Oz) played Toto, an iconic film puppy. Reportedly paid more than many human actors on set, Terry was a hard working dog with 15 films in less than ten years. Judy Garland wanted to adopt this ragamuffin but Terry’s owners refused. They also eventually changed her name to Toto. This pup was so badass that she did her own stunts and broke a foot during the Wizard of Oz filming, coming back on set after two weeks recovery. Cute as a button too.


Pal was the first in a long line of collies, many of whom where his own bloodline, to play Lassie in movies and TV. Pal was in the 1943 debut film Lassie Come Home and played the part in six more movies. Reading about Pal’s close relationship with his trainer, Rudd Weatherwax, is making me all misty eyed. Apparently Rudd broke Pal of his barking habit but could never quite get the motorcycle chasing under control. Pal is probably the most famous doggie on this list. And SO FLUFFY!!!


Spike (Old Yeller) was rescued from a California shelter and trained by Rudd’s brother Frank Weatherwax. No list about dogs in film would be complete without this Labrador retriever/mastiff mix. A coming of age piece about a boy and his dog, Old Yeller is a part of our culture. Which makes sense, it resonated with the baby boomers, and anything that happened to them is officially “classic”.

Sigur Ros: Inni

By Matt Baker, January 9 2012

Yesterday afternoon I saw Inni at the Metro Cinema and I felt as though I should write something about it, although I don’t feel I have quite enough to discuss to warrant an actual review of the documentary.  I wasn’t even sure what to write about at all, other than a gentle ribbing of their stage fashion (the lead singer looks like Ziggy Stardust applying for a spot in the Lonely Hearts Club Band).  If you are here looking for my opinion on the film itself, it is great.  Go see it, even if you are only vaguely familiar with Sigur Rόs.  If you have no idea who Sigur Rόs is you give your eyes and ears a treat and go see it anyway.  And bring a friend.  It is a beautiful and moving auditory and visual experience.  In fact, my main criticism of the film is that I find the music so beautiful and interesting that I want to close my eyes to listen to it, at which point I am missing the film itself. 



Comprised almost entirely of concert footage, Inni really relies on the cinematography and editing to make it worth watching and not just sitting at home with the CD playing and your eyes closed.  Fortunately, the film itself very beautiful, although it often had the picture quality of a home video and I would have liked a crisper image.  Of course, this may have been due more viewing a digital copy rather than a film print, and in the end it didn’t really detract from the viewing experience.


The most important thing I wanted to mention here was how I felt while watching Inni.  Essentially, it brought back all my feelings of despair that music this beautiful and interesting exists and is combined with a mesmerising stage show and yet people insist on listening to the boring and derivative music found on the radio.  Now that may seem a little hipster-y, but I swear, I’m not trying to be snobby.  This isn’t some sort of exclusivity thing to make me feel above everyone else.  I want everyone to hear this music and see what these concerts can be like.  I would love for the mainstream to embrace interesting and thoughtful music.  Also, it is not just me.  In the words of Roz (who loves the radio and frequently accuses me of being a hipster), “this music makes Muse sound like Nickleback”.  And Muse, although not my cup of tea, are very talented individuals.  But actually watching Sigur Rόs play and realising that their sound is not due to studio trickery is kind of mind blowing.  Everyone in the band is crazy talented, but the lead singer’s pitch is just out of this world.  Also, I had never really paid much attention to the drumming before, but holy shit is their drummer spectacular!

 So I think what I am trying to get at here is that you should all try and see this film.  And if you can’t, then pick up a Sigur Rόs album (personally I recommend Ágætis byrjun).  Your ears will thank you.

Adventures in TVland

By Matt Baker, January 8 2012

I’ve watched a lot of TV this fall.  Like a lot a lot.  Perhaps it was a misguided desire be with a great show from the beginning, or gain some sort of weird geek cred, or maybe I`m just kind of masochistic, but for some reason I got it in to my head that I should watch an absurd number of the new fall shows.  And, with the help of my trusty PVR, I set out to accomplish it.  Now my goal was not to watch all of the new TV shows – in fact there are a few that I thought looked promising that didn`t even make it on the list – but I wanted to choose a reasonable selection that promised to be either sleeper hits or just seemed cool.  Fortunately, although it began unwieldy, my list began to shrink rapidly as soon as I started watching.

First on the chopping block was The Playboy Club.  I didn`t even make it through the first episode and apparently the general populous agreed with me as it was cancelled after only three episodes.  I love Sean Maher and I feel bad for him that his show was cancelled, but frankly it was just plain boring – I couldn`t care less what was going on in it.  I guess I technically watched more of How to Be a Gentleman, in that I watched a full episode before I gave up, but it is only a half hour show, so really I lasted the same amount of time.  I have nothing to say about it because, honestly, I didn’t even remember that it existed until I was looking up the fall shows just now.

Next to go was Ringer.  Now this one I actually had some high hopes for as it starred Sarah Michelle Gellar.  I actually made it about 2.5 episodes before I called it quits, but thankfully for Ms. Gellar, this show is still going.  Unlike The Playboy Club, I don`t think Ringer actually sucks, it just didn`t work for me.  I was hoping for a cool conspiracy/thriller type show with lots of intrigue and mysterious characters, and while the show has all these elements, the overall feel was just too soapy for me.

I had a little better luck with the sitcoms, but this may have just been due to increased patience and the hope that good comedy just needs to find its footing (except Gentleman – that show just sucked).  I’m actually surprised at how long I stayed with Whitney – most of the jokes were pretty painful but there were usually one or two that were just good enough to keep my hopes alive.  Well, for about four episodes at any rate.  I actually managed to stick with 2 Broke Girls for about 7 episodes before Kat Dennings could no longer rise above the dross around her.

Not yet axed from my list, but feeling the edge of the blade on their necks are Pan Am, Person of Interest, and Terra Nova.  Pan Am and Person of Interest are weird because I don’t actually have anything bad to say about them, but neither do I have anything good to say about them.  They are the pretty much the perfect example of mediocre television, although I think Person of Interest has more potential to pick up in the second half of its season.  I still have one episode of Pan Am on my PVR but unless it pulls out a miracle I think I’m going to have to let it go.
But what of Terra Nova? you might ask.  Well, I don’t know.  Thus far Terra Nova has been the biggest disappointment of the season.  It was certainly not the worst show I watched this fall, but it is probably the one I most wanted to like.  It should be good.  It could be great. But it’s not.  It has a decent cast, a decent set of characters, time travel and dinosaurs.  So what the heck is holding it back?  I think it all comes down to a lack of a strong vision for the direction the story should take.  And I’m clearly not the only person who thinks this.  Joel Watson, the brilliant mind behind Hijinks Ensue, apparently has written pages to himself on how the show could be improved and then provided the world with this comic:

I think Joss Whedon is the way to go.  But then, I always think Joss Whedon is the way to go.  Anyhoo, season one finished in December and although I wasn’t too impressed with the finale, the last five minutes managed to hook me in to at least trying season two whenever it starts.  We’ll see what happens.

So did any good come of this fall TV adventure? Well, yes.  I got two new favourite shows: New Girl and Suburgatory.  New Girl stars Zooey Deschanel and some people you probably don’t know (although Justin Long does make a too-brief appearance).  How much you like New Girl probably depends on how much you like Zooey Deschanel.  Fortunately for me, that is quite a bit.  Frankly, I was sold on this show from Zooey’s first Smeagol joke in the pilot.  The second episode switched up the cast, with Damon Wayons Jr. replaced by Lamorne Morris.  This concerned me a bit as Damon was one of my favourite parts of the pilot, but it is actually turned out really well.  Lamorne has done a great job and his character has bloomed nicely.  Actually that can be said for pretty much all the characters, especially Schmidt, who had the potential to drag the whole show down if handled improperly.  The pilot showed a lot of promise and I’m really glad it has managed to exceed any hopes I had for it.  If you haven’t checked it out yet, you should make it a priority.

I have been fully onboard the Suburgatory train right from the get-go and it has yet to let me down, and not just because it has Alan Tudyk.  Jane Levy stars as Tessa, a precocious teen whose father (Jeremy Sisto) has just uprooted them from Manhattan to the suburbs.  Needless to say, Tessa is not impressed as she attempts to deal with ditzy moms, vapid classmates and various other stereotypes of the suburban elite.  Yet another show that could easily go wrong by being either too mean or relying too much on stale jokes, Suburgatory uses its great cast chemistry and snappy writing to keep it all feeling fresh.  Put it on your list.

In love with The Artist

By Roz Young, January 5 2012

I experienced a rare and very special treat yesterday when Matt and I went to see Michel Hazanavicius’ gorgeous black and white silent film, The Artist. It’s a wonderful tribute to the old Hollywood glamour of early movies and their stars. Just like Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford, iconic silent film actors from the early 1900s, Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo play George Valentin and Peppy Miller. They are both graceful, charming and capable of great physical comedy while capturing tragedy and sadness in their expressive faces. Set during the time of transition between silent film and “the talkies”, George is being left behind by new cinema to make way for the young Peppy. The movie is beautiful, touching, clever and I loved it.

I’ve been thinking about the difference between old Hollywoodland and our modern tinsel town. I’ve only experienced early movie glamour through films made decades ago, so my romanticism is natural. I think Sally Jupiter (Silk Spectre to the rest of you) said it best when she told her daughter “Every day, the future looks a little bit darker. But the past… even the grimy parts of it… keep on getting brighter.” And back then, reporters didn’t stalk starlets to post pictures of them getting out of cars without their panties on. Matt was discussing with me the unspoken code of early Hollywood, keeping private lives out of the public eye, at least the seedy stuff. Especially the bedroom secrets, the affairs and the booze and the drugs, all the stuff that’s paparazzi gold and big news today. It’s a trashy world out there. It’s probably always been, but now it’s all our business and the information is at my fingertips. I’m sure lots of 1920s starlets had sex tapes, but they didn’t make their way around the internet.

Watching The Artist, I was also reminded about how talented some movie stars are. The early actors who could play instruments, sing, dance and tell a great story just with their eyes. Now we’ve got the Kardashians. I guess that’s a bit unfair, I did watch JGL and Zooey Deschanel on New Years perform a little song... Maybe we do have some modern, talented actors who might be able to steal hearts even a hundred years from now.