Dear Comedy Central

Dear Comedy Central (help@cc.com),

I would like to start out by saying I'm a fan of Mr. Devine's comedy, and rather enjoy Workaholics.  I think it's a quality, broad-humor show with a brainy streak in the vein of classics like The Three Stooges and Cheech & Chong, and I look forward to viewing more episodes in the future.  I also would like to make the point that I don't shirk from rough comedy; in fact, I revel in the stuff.

However, I think the choice to use a gun (with fired blanks, apparently) at the end of the "Adam Killed a Man" episode of "Adam Devine's House Party" was unfortunate.  I found particularly egregious his pointing the gun for comedic effect (a) at two police officers he was holding hostage, (b) at the (obviously shocked) crowd present, then (c) at his own face.

I do understand that the pointing of guns is widely used on TV programs, but there is usually a psychological wall separating the violence in drama/cop/thriller shows and comedy programming (just as The Daily Show gets away with certain types of editorializing because the network that puts it on the air has the word "comedy" in its name, unlike, say, Sean Hannity, whose network awkwardly includes the word "news" in its name).

Further complicating things, it seems the conceit of "Adam Devine's House Party" to be that it's a pseudo-reality show (as obviously scripted as it may be), where a real-life Mr. Devine is hosting a party of sorts at his house (which also has a theater in it?), and that some of his guests have been invited to perform their stand-up comedy acts.  Eliminating the "fourth wall", in this sense, opens up some comedic possibilities to be sure, but also brings with it the need for extra responsibility since what it portrays can be taken to be more "real" by some viewers, even if they still think of it as scripted comedy in general.  Try to think like a 10-year-old on this one.

Please note that my comment is NOT about the episode in general, its murderous plot, the fact that Mr. Devine appeared on camera throughout the episode covered in blood while presenting the various acts (I actually thought that was pretty funny), or any other dramatic elements. I'm only referencing the gun as an object, and how it was used on-screen.

This is a particularly sensitive matter when a comic actor of Mr. Devine's talents, which appeal mostly to younger viewers, can put the wrong idea in people's minds about what sort of thing is "funny" to do with your friends (something tells me that somebody, somewhere, at some point, mourned the cancellation of MTV's "Jackass", but I hope never to meet that person).

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.  In particular I would like to hear that this uncomfortable choice is a single occurrence, and not a sign of where Mr. Devine plans to take his artistic sensibilities in the future.  I sure would hate to miss any of it.

David Gregory's Head is Huge (pt 2)

rAs I've pointed out before

Netflix Lives On - In its various forms

http://www.slate.com/id/2265755

Most of the article is dead-on, with....

... two notes:

1. Their (and everybody else's) streaming service is crap. The video looks like crap, and the audio is not 5.1 or anything like that (mono, most often). I know that a lot of people don't care about that, but looking forward that is unacceptable (3D?) and that is from whence I speak. Personally, given the choice I would never ever watch a movie streamed off the network instead of off a disc (CERTAINLY if the disc in question was blu-ray), even if I had to wait for it 2-3 days for it to come in the mail.

2. Their streaming service offers no extras (alternate languages & mixes / captions / commentary / making-of's etc etc).

#1 is a matter of network throughput. Given unlimited network bandwidth you can put through the 25GB (blu-ray average) of two hours or so that an HD movie requires. But in practice that's about an order of magnitude higher than even the best home networks can provide (and TWO orders of magnitude off from what my DSL in NYC gets me.. boo-hoo to me, and go figure).

#2 is a matter of software -- creating an end-user interface that allows you to hyperlink via the player / DVR / Apple TV off on-screen choices to various bits of video segments etc. That's not hard in the great/small scheme of things, just a drive to provide an alternate user-end interface to the legacy content of 14 years of standard DVD titles (a pure software driven DVD player -- in real time over the internet -- not likely given copyright panty-bunching).

So, we will continue to see a segmentation between "let me watch the movie (crappy, streamed)" and "give me the whole experience with the extras (full, off a disc)".

Pink Floyd Wins Legal Battle to Only Sell Full Albums Online

I like this this entry on Gizmodo, written by furniture-fucker Adam Frucci, which points to a British High Court decision that that Pink Floyd's contract with EMI prohibits individual songs from their albums being sold individually.

I'm not usually one to cheer limitations on online (sold or otherwise) media, but I do cheer anytime people will choose to PAY for Pink Floyd music and are actually forced to, you know, listen to the whole album, as people were expected to in the 70s.  Get with the program -- you don't just watch the Star Gate sequence from 2001: A Space Odyssey and get to call yourself a Kubrick fan (or know what the hell you're talking about in any context).

From the BBC News article (linked to from the Gizmodo entry):

In court, Chancellor Sir Andrew Morritt said the contract contained a clause to "preserve the artistic integrity of the albums". 

I have no sympathy for people who are as a matter of course willing to pay the iTunes- / record company- tax just so they so they can get "Another Brick in the Wall" or "Comfortably Numb" tracks without having (getting to) listen to the entirety of "The Wall" album.  Fuck 'em. I say: "Let them crash."

On the other hand, those that care about the quality of the overall piece will get it (for free) as a full-album torrent anyway, so I'm not sure what they're worried about.  (GASP..! could it be money?)

"Fine" ?

Oliver Stone's Iraq War Ad

Slate's take (MediaCurve.com 's actually) on Oliver Stone's anti-Iraq War ad is somewhat interesting (note that the Republican "total approval" curve never actually goes below 0%/neutral !) but all I'm left thinking afterwards is: "It took Oliver Stone to produce this ??"

Some thoughts on "You people" -- Open letter to Al Sharpton

I don't give a shit about Don Imus. He wears a cowboy hat indoors, for god's sake; if you place more trust and value in his words than you would in a used car salesman's it's your fault and your problem. He is paid to go on the radio and say things that will get advertisers to give up their money, the intermediate steps in that equation being fairly clear and understood (who would listen to him otherwise?).

Having said that, there are some events related to his appearance yesterday on Al Sharpton's radio show which must be commented on (which is also on video here; unfortunately I can't now find the full-length one I watched yesterday).

Let's recap a few facts: Don Imus used some stupid, ill-thought-out words to refer to some women who are part of a college basketball team. Refer to the first paragraph for my thoughts on this. Al Sharpton then calls for Imus to be fired. Please note that it is not WHAT Imus was saying that merits his dismissal, according to Sharpton, but what WORDS he used. This is the same attitude in people who recoil in horror of the word "nigger" regardless of WHAT is being said (if the reader has an issue with my using that word now then please stop reading as that is the only thing you will remember anyway; I applaud your efficiency).

Imus then invites Sharpton to his show so they could talk things out. Sharpton understandably is reluctant to do that; instead he invites Imus to his show. I personally see this as reasonable and comparable to

"You called my cousin a cunt."
"OK, that was a mistake. I would like to apologize in person in front of your whole family. Would y'all like to come over this afternoon?"
"Actually, I'd rather you came over."
"No problem."

i.e., one person knows who has the upper hand and is willing to play in the other party's "home field".

So, now Imus is on Sharpton's show. He is unqualifiedly apologetic. He does not try to defend his words; barely even attempts to explain what was being said (i.e., meaning and intent) at the time he used the words (which any reasonable person would consider a necessary step; how can you apologize for something if it is not understood for what you are apologizing?)

This is the point at which Revered Al Sharpton, a self-described man of God and a follower of Jesus Christ, having invited to converse a man who has "sinned" (and who is expressing deep, personal, remorse for his transgression and is seeking personal as well as public forgiveness), chooses to do this during a call-in segment with a member of congress (quoted from the NY Post, linked off the entry header):

Rep. Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick (D-Mich.), chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, questioned whether Imus fully understood how he hurt black women. That's when Imus lost it.

"I do understand that. How do you assume that I don't understand that? Of course I understand that! It's like the old country song, 'God may forgive you, but I won't. Jesus loves you but I don't.' So I can't get any place with you people, but I can get some place with Jesus"
[...]
"Who is 'you people,' Mr. Imus?" asked Sharpton.

"You and this woman I'm talking to," Imus responded to Sharpton. "Don't try to hang that on me. That's jive."

"What's jive?" Sharpton shot back.

" 'What do you mean by 'you people?' You know what I meant - you two people," Imus angrily answered. "That's not even fair. You said you were going to be fair. Keep your word!"

"I'm being very fair, I'm being fair. I'm keeping it real," Sharpton said. "I'm in charge here, I'm in charge here. I asked you the question!"

(The phrase "you people" is associated with Ross Perot having used it in an ill-received way during a speech to the NAACP in 1992 and has since been used to "out" those who speak it and will not obligingly manifest themselves as racist as the listener would like them to be. Please note that, with a very small sucking sound, the nature and content of the speech has been lost to the ages.)

This is what I take exception to; it may seem a small matter (or worse, a defense of Imus; it is not) but my point is that Don Imus is a radio jock. He is neither, to take three random examples, a man of the cloth, nor a person who at one point expected to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, nor somebody who is seen as a "civil rights leader" by enough people for it to be a problem.

Mr. Sharpton, you have built a career out of slicing racial indignation into thinner and thinner slices, always choosing to loudly vocalize about that indignation rather than making the truly hard choices that peaceful resistance leaders in the 50s and 60s made in order to be taken seriously. You incite strife where there is none; you self-servingly destroy where there is an opportunity to learn and create.

I imagine you think to yourself, "Why would anybody listen to me otherwise? How could I make the advertisers give up their money otherwise?"

Mr. Sharpton, you people make me sick. And by "you people" I mean disingenuous, self-serving, race-baiting jackasses who prey on the intellectual weaknesses of others.


-- Juan Molinari, April 10, 2007, NYC