SEPTA

Had my first really bad experience with SEPTA today. I say this as I have been taking the train three days a week for much of the past six months without any real problem. I usually get the 7:16 train and am able to walk into class just before 8:00.

This morning, however, I arrived at the station at about 7:10 and got in line to buy my tickets. As I was waiting, at about 7:13, a train pulled up - but it was too early for the 7:16 and looked like the express which usually goes right by. I tried to get through the line as quickly as possible, but missed the train. I didn't think this would be a problem as the regular train should have been coming. Shortly after the train left, however, an announcement was made that the 7:16 was cancelled and that the express would be making all local stops.

There are two things that bothered me here. One is that they could have announced BEFORE the express arrived and left that it was the train to get on. Second, they easily could have held up the train a few minutes to put it on time with the regular 7:16 for this and all subsequent stations.

I guess, however, they felt it was going to be fine as the next announcement also told us that the 7:25 express would stop at my station and two others on the way in to town. Good, so instead of having to wait until 7:45 I could get on the train about 10 minutes late. I could live with that.

However, the express didn't stop. Many of us were quite dismayed as the express came down the tracks but did not slow down and sped right past the station. Either the driver forgot or someone forgot to tell him/her to stop. Needles to say we were not happy but could do nothing.

And of course there was no other announcement.

The upshot was that I was 30 minutes late for my class - I had to effectively cancel my class. I now will try and go for the early train just in case. (This was not exactly an isolated moment - the 7:16 has been late three times before this in the last week.)

Punditry

The other night, The Daily Show had on what was its best "Great Moments in Punditry as Read by Children" that I have seen.

For those of you unfamiliar with the show, this skit usually lasts about 30 seconds or so and involves children reading transcripts from talk-shows of pundits saying usually ridiculous things. As it goes, these are often quite funny and reveal the idiocy of the comments by decontextualizing them from the talk-show format which serves to mask what is being said.

For this skit, there were four children reading a section from "Hannity and Colmes" on some date from, I think, last summer. They were discussing the "scandal" of the Democrat who illegally removed documents from some library (I can't remember right now exactly who it was or the circumstances). For the skit, there was a young man reading Hannity, another reading a democratic commentator, a young girl reading Ann Coulter, and another young girl reading Colmes. The main thrust of the selection begins with "Ann Coulter" making a statement about the theft of documents and the "democrat" stepping in to correct what did turn out to be an exaggeration.

"Hannity" then jumps on the "democrat" for interrupting and the two go back and forth as "Hannity" suggests that the "democrat" needs to get in line or he will cut off his mic and throw him off the show. The two argue over this for some time, with "Coulter" jumping in from time to time to try and add something.

What makes this so wonderful to now is that it is going on for longer than usual. As I mentioned, these segments usually last about 30 seconds at most. This one goes on for at least a minute. And what you begin to notice after a while is that throughout it all, "Colmes" is sitting on the side doing nothing. I began to wonder after a while of watching the young girl "Colmes" fidget and squirm while the others argue if she was ever going to say anything. Then, suddenly, the other three pause and then look over at "Colmes" who says "We'll be right back." She then begins to laugh and says "I wasn't paying attention."

Whether this was scripted or not, what made this so great was how it reveals so completely the function of Colmes on this show - he is nothing but a prop on the set. During the usual viewing of the show, the edits and cuts mask the fact that Colems is often doing little more than sitting there waiting to cut to commercial while Hannity makes points. The staging of this as well as the final "acting" of the young girl playing "Colmes" reveal perfectly the charade that is this show.

Great work.

Big Snow

snowy.JPG
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

snowsmile.JPG
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

We had some fun yesterday with the big snow. Here are some snaps of Sebastian after playing for awhile outside.

Been Busy

The semester has begun and things are gearing up.

Will get back to writing here soon.

Watched Spider-Man 2 tonight and was both impressed and disappointed. I'll come back to that.

Of Human Bondage

As you can see from the list on the right, I am just finished watching (again) Of Human Bondage (1934). I am going to be writing about it some more in a moment for my work, but I wanted to use this to throw out some comments after this viewing to get my mind going.

• The main thing I want to address are the similarities of this film to Dangerous (1935). Both use Davis as a woman who destroys the man who is in love with her. Both feature rather wooden leading men, Leslie Howard and Franchot Tone, whose lack of emotion is only heightened by playing opposite Davis. Both are stories of the differences between healthy and unhealthy feminine love and desire.
  
• On this last point, though, the two films differ in emphasis. Bondage highlights the unhealthy, destructive desires of Mildred (Davis), while Dangerous gives a little more emphasis on the devoted love of Gail Armitage (Margaret Lindsay), Don's (Tone) fiancee at the opening of the film.
  
• In this respect, Dangerous is the "safer" of the two films - probably owing to its production at Warners and Bondage's source text. Dangerous frames the story of Don and Joyce with Gail's love of Don - she is there at the beginning and they marry at the end.
  
• The film also softens the sexual connotations of Mildred in Bondage. Mildred's relationship with Miller, her pregnancy, the innuendo that she will turn (has already turned?) to prostitution, and her TB underscore the sexual nature of that character. For Joyce Heath this is turned into "passion for living" and, more explicitly, "passion for acting."
• For Bondage itself, I was struck by the physicality of the film. Much is made early on of Phillip's club foot - we get several shots of his feet hobbling down the street or into and out of the coffee house. He is forced to show it to his medical school classmates so that they can study it, and Mildred explicitly remarks on it when she first meets him and sees him walking away. Her last, and most vile, rebuke of him when he finally turns on her is to call him a cripple.
  
• Similarly for Davis there are a great number of full length shots of her whole body and, early in the film, she appears to Don in his fantasies - a skeleton becomes her as do the pages of his exam. Most explicitly, however, is how her body is used to mark her descent. As the film progresses her physical appearance deteriorates - dark eyes, pallid skin, make to look thinner - to mark her illness and descent.
• I was also struck by the number of shots with either Phillip or Mildred (and others) looking at the camera. The first I noticed is when they go on their first date. As they sit across from one another, rather than getting the usual shot-reverse shot of their conversation, with the camera at an angle to them as they clearly look at one another, we get straight on medium close-ups of each as the talk. This also happens at other moments in the film, almost always with either Phillip or Mildred.
  
• Finally, I am always struck by the ending of the film as Phillip and Sally (Frances Dee) walk down the street. He bumps into someone, then all of the cars honk loudly at them as they cross the street, drowning out their conversation, a taxi driver keeps interrupting them, and then she bumps into a man before they finally do get into the taxi. The moment reminds me of things I have seen in some silent films, notably Piccadilly (1929) and After Midnight (1927), that seem to relate to the intrusion of modernity into relationships.
  

These are some things I am thinking of right now and need to work through in my chapter.

2005 Mummers Parade

Here are a few of my favorite photos from the Mummers parade.

Clown Mummer
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

Headless Mummers
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

Police Mummers
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

Mummer Drink
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

Karen and Sebastian

Karen and Sebastian
Originally uploaded by HadleyOil.

Here is a great picture from the Mummers parade.

Some more are to follow.

Back

Been away for awhile involved in all things crazy over Christmas and New Years.

I hope to ge back to writing semi-regularly soon.

I'll get some more pictures up soon to.

Social Security

Here are two key moments from The New York Times Editorial: The Social Security Fear Factor in today's paper:

"The zeal over privatization is fueled by the belief of Mr. Bush and his supporters that free-market fixes are appropriate for virtually every problem. That faith is misguided. For a society to be functional and humane, it's not enough that some people have a chance to be rich in old age. Rather, all old people must have the dignity of financial security, and that requires universal coverage."

"Social Security is the core tier of old-age support, replacing about a third of preretirement income for a typical retiree and providing inflation-proof income for life - a feature not available in private accounts. Its purpose is not to supplant other retirement investing, but to provide a crucial safety net. Anyone who wants to maintain his or her standard of living into old age must also amass substantial personal savings and investments. To introduce the same risk into the core tier of benefits that already exists for the bulk of one's retirement savings would be as unfair as it is unwise." (emphasis mine)

It's about time some of the major newspapers got into this and began printing something other than the usual Bush lies about Social Security. This needs to be spread far and wide in the upcoming months.