I really wish Apple would spend as much money marketing For All Mankind as they do for Ted Lasso.

    I just finished the amazing second season and this brilliant show deserves far more attention than itā€™s getting. šŸ“ŗšŸŽ

    Pattering rain one hour and bright sunshine the next. Southern California is being weird today.

    If I had a nickel for every time the hand washing feature on my Apple Watch didnā€™t work, then Iā€™d have enough money to buy a new Apple Watch that had a properly working hand washing feature. šŸŽ

    It being more ā€œindustry standard,ā€ I frequently try to give Logic Pro a fair shake for my podcast editing. Iā€™m not sure whatā€™s wrong, but it just never sticks. I always find my way back to the comforts of Ferrite Recording Studio.šŸŽ™

    If I didnā€™t have tinnitus before my brotherā€™s wedding, I certainly would now.

    In all seriousness, Iā€™m thrilled for him! He and his wife deserve all the best. I was very happy to share and celebrate the day with everybody. ā¤ļø

    Nothing has ever made me feel more pleased with my own small wedding than witnessing the huge production that is my brotherā€™s wedding. To each their own, but man, does that look stressful to me.

    Title Card: Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

    The title card for Raiders of the Lost Ark.

    Raiders of the Lost Ark was written by Lawrence Kasdan and directed by Steven Spielberg. It was released in 1981. The film was produced by Paramount Pictures and Lucasfilm. The titles were created by the MGM Titles department.

    Archaeologist Indiana Jones, played by Harrision Ford, discovers that the Nazis, led by rival archaeologist RenĆ© Belloq, played by Paul Freeman are hot on the trail of the Ark of the Covenant, the chest holding the Ten Commandments. Indy is recruited by the U.S. Army to recover the Ark before Adolf Hitler can use it to make his army invincible. Reuniting with old flame Marion Ravenwood, played by Karen Allen, and friend Sallah, played by John Rhys-Davies, the trio sets off on a globe-crossing adventure to find the Ark so it doesnā€™t fall into the wrong hands.

    Coming off the one-two knockouts of Jaws and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, itā€™s no surprise that this film quickly became a critical and commercial success. Whatā€™s a little more surprising, even to some of the stars of the film, is how influential and beloved the movie has become since its release. Itā€™s a thrilling and moving film, to be sure, but a crown jewel in the history of cinema? Who ever expects something like that to happen? Something like James Cameronā€™s Avatar is undeniably more financially successful,1 but youā€™d be hard-pressed to find someone who holds Avatar in higher esteem. Theyā€™re both action-adventure films, made with the height of filmmaking technology at their respective production times. Yet, here we are. Due to its amazing performances, stellar direction, and a closing sequence that still boggles the mind, Raiders of the Lost Ark is a film that will be remembered forever. šŸŽž


    1. As of this writing, that behemoth has made over 2.8 billion dollars. When adjusting for inflation, itā€™s second only to Gone with the Wind. ↩︎

    I finished watching Schittā€™s Creek a few days ago. The show has been stuck in my mind since then for two reasons:

    1. I enjoyed just about every dang second of it.
    2. Iā€™m disappointed by the ending of the show.

    In fairness, the conclusion of a tv show will never satisfy every viewer, and this is especially true when a show becomes widely watched and beloved. Game of Thrones, anyone?1 However, for a show as smart and caring as Schittā€™s Creek, I expected more real growth from the main characters than what we got.2

    The Rose family blew through the town of Schittā€™s Creek like a slow whirlwind, affecting its citizens in myriad ways. The tears and heartfelt goodbyes that the Roses received when three-quarters of them left in the series finale demonstrated that they all left indelible marks on those with whom they had relationships. Therefore, it leaves a hollow feeling when itā€™s only David who stays behind. The rest leave with some fond, peculiar memories, but in some cases, little personal growth.

    Were it not for his new husband, Patrick Brewer, David would have been out of the town in a flash, opening up a new location for his Rose Apothecary somewhere in New York City. That is, if he had ever been able to open up the Schittā€™s Creek store in the first place without Patrickā€™s help. Iā€™m grateful for his sensible realization that heā€™d be happier with his husband and business in the place thatā€™s given him so much. His new house isnā€™t half bad either.

    Alexisā€™s exit made the most sense. Sheā€™s at the beginning of a grand new adventure. Her blossoming PR firm, Alexis Rose Communications, was born out of her determination to get her G.E.D., find something to do with her life, and chase after that goal. Itā€™s a great tragedy that her relationship with Ted Mullens had to end for her to achieve her dream (and he to achieve his), but sometimes life gets in the way of even the best relationships.3 Alexisā€™s life before her time in Schittā€™s Creek was certainly colorful, but it was aimless. By the end of the show, sheā€™d found an exciting path to travel. It just so happened that the path led away from the town. Nevertheless, her emotional parting conversations with Twyla Sands show that she understands the value of her time spent there.

    Johnny, always the patient, level-headed patriarch,4 birthed a new business with the help of the wonderfully acerbic Stevie Budd. Their sure-to-be successful chain of motels will give them all security and purpose, along with, one can assume, a new mountain of cash. Why the headquarters of Rosebud Motels couldnā€™t be located in Schittā€™s Creek, I have no idea. How nice would it have been to give back to the town, and Roland and Jocelyn Schitt, that took the Rose family in at their lowest point by making it a major hub for this business? California is nice,5 but why is it an essential location? If that was the case, why wasnā€™t it necessary for Stevie to come along to California? Itā€™s an interconnected world. They started the new business in Schittā€™s Creek and got noticed, so why couldnā€™t they keep that momentum up in the city?

    Moira may have been the worst of the bunch, in this case. As we saw in the season five finale, titled, Life Is a Cabaret, upon learning that her beloved crows movie wouldnā€™t be getting a premiere event or distribution deal, she let out a scream to split the heavens and collapsed into a sorrowful heap. She spent a decent amount of the subsequent episode in a near-catatonic mess, hiding in her closet behind its flimsy accordion door. Her hard work was going to go unseen, but more tragically, her burgeoning ticket out of the titular town was being stolen from her.

    However, when things turn around for The Crows Have Eyes III: The Crowening, leading to her reprisal in the reboot of her star-making soap opera, Sunrise Bay, she ultimately takes the role. The job would necessitate her presence on set outside of Schittā€™s Creek, but why couldnā€™t the town be her home during the showā€™s downtime? Instead, sheā€™s always been the most eager to return to a life of recognition and riches. Itā€™s a shame to never see that desperation fade. I do not doubt that she became a better person since losing her past life, but even the newfound closeness her family experienced was never enough to fill the hole that fame dug into her. Even after her heavy goodbyes to the group that loved her the mostā€”her fellow Jazzagalsā€”she was all too willing to put the town in her rearview mirror, so to speak.

    I loved this show and will surely watch it again in the future. However, the ending could have had a better messageā€”one of growth, appreciation, and love for the people of Schittā€™s Creek. They were always more welcoming and caring than the people who turned their backs on the Rose family at the beginning of the show. The journey was fun, but for me, still fell short of being spectacular. šŸ“ŗ


    1. While that show had its issues, I donā€™t think its conclusion was nearly as bad as the internet makes it out to be. But much like Star Wars fandom, nobody hates Game of Thrones quite like a Game of Thrones fan. If youā€™ve spent any time on the internet, you know that subtlety is a rare find. ↩︎

    2. WARNING: there are some major spoilers beyond this point. ↩︎

    3. Iā€™m still sad about that one. Seriously, how great were they together? ↩︎

    4. At least, compared to the rest of his family. ↩︎

    5. I may be a bit biased here. ↩︎

    Happy Day When All the Inconsiderate Jerk-Faces Set Off Explosives That Scare My Dogs All Night Because Theyā€™re Jerk-Faces!

    Title Card: Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)

    The title card for Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.

    Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was written by Albert Hackett, Frances Goodrich, and Dorothy Kingsley and was directed by Stanley Donen. It was released in 1954. The film was produced by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer.

    In 1850, thereā€™s wood to be chopped, dances to be danced, and women to be married. Adam Pontipee, played by Howard Keel, meets local tavern worker Milly, played by Jane Powell. Within hours of meeting and falling for her, Adam asks her to marry himā€”a proposal which she accepts. Upon returning to Adamā€™s mountain cabin, Milly is surprised to learn that Adam is the eldest of seven brothers, all living together. Despite her disappointment at not being able to live the married life she had envisioned for herself, she tasks herself with cleaning up her new home and teaching the brothers how to be polite and proper men. These six lovelorn men soon realize that the only way theyā€™ll meet and marry a woman like Milly is if they drop their poor manners and do things her way. At a social gathering in town, they meet six women and try out their new personas on them. The girls take a liking to these brothers, but trouble erupts when their current suitors find out about these new sweethearts.

    Thereā€™s a shameful hole in my movie-watching past, and it consists almost exclusively of unwatched musicals. I donā€™t dislike musicals. I just havenā€™t watched many of them. Itā€™s a damn shame because a great many of them can be counted amongst the best films ever made. Singinā€™ in the Rain, anyone?1 My wife, on the other hand, has maybe seen every single musical ever made. Thank goodness she still decided to marry me. I think she saw my musical inexperience as an opportunity to educate me on the finer points of this genre, one of those being this film. Which I loved. Loved a whole lot. Like many musicals, the songs are the main draw here, and there are some serious bangers (as the youths say).2 You would do well to check out Bless Yore Beautiful Hide, Goinā€™ Courtinā€™, and The Barn Dance. If youā€™re anything like me, you should go into the film without any notions about it. Its bouncy, tuneful, and vibrant spirit will win you over. If youā€™ve already seen it, why not give it another watch? You already know how excellent it is. šŸŽž


    1. In fairness to myself, I have at least seen that one. ↩︎

    2. Or have they moved on to some other gobbledygook and Iā€™m showing my age here? ↩︎

    Letterboxd Diariesā€”June 2021

    • Point Break: While watching this, I became even sadder knowing that Patrick Swayze is dead. He was a great talent, but more than that, weā€™ll never get to see a sequel where Bodhi is somehow still alive and finally makes everyoneā€™s dreams come true by getting it on with Utah. Surf-style. Also, I will never not enjoy John C. McGinley yelling his damn head off at other people. Thatā€™s my happy place. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Capernaum: This is an amazing, moving, important film that I never want to see again. It sapped me of so much energy and was one of the toughest watches Iā€™ve ever had. There can never be enough praise given to Zain Al Rafeea for his supernaturally good performance. What he did, and at his age, is beyond comparison. It was truly something special. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Batman: Mask of the Phantasm: An extended version of a show thatā€™s already one of the best superhero cartoons ever made is sure to be excellent. This one did not disappoint in any way. In fact, it elevated Batman. By delving into Bruce Wayneā€™s history, weā€™re shown more about the motivations and hindrances that the Caped Crusader faces. Throw in a great Mark Hamill performance and a mysterious new antagonist and you got something timeless. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Bo Burnham: Inside: A melancholic, introspective look at isolation, humanity, the desire for connection, and creativity. This is a moving and imaginative work of art. It comes with frequent bouts of brilliance, as well as songs that can stand on their own. Iā€™m astounded by how much Bo Burnham was able to accomplish on his own. Heā€™s got true talent. After watching this, I wish nothing but the best for him. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • An American Tail: That damn mouse! So much heartache and terror just because a kid wouldnā€™t listen to their parent, but I guess thatā€™s just reality when it comes to children. There was some pretty astounding animation shown off in this film, and it was apparently unique in its classic feel. It goes a long way to making a somewhat thin storyline feel more robust. This film gains depth by providing some astounding eye candy. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Shadow of a Doubt: The peculiar editing of this film threw me off so much that I thought there was something wrong with the video file itself. To find out that this is one of Hitchcockā€™s favorites of his own work takes me aback even further. Teresa Wright and Joseph Cotton are thrilling and excellent, to be sure, but this one just didnā€™t do it for me like the directorā€™s other works have. Itā€™s a dang shame because the story is clever and unique. I wanted to enjoy it more than I did, but alas… (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Say Anythingā€¦: Watching this felt like I was peering through a portal into my teenage years. So much of this felt familiar. Itā€™s astounding to know that this is Cameron Croweā€™s first feature film. His first outing is this damn strong? Who the hell does he think he is?! If I had watched this film when I was Lloyd Dobblerā€™s age, Iā€™m sure I would have related to him the most. Iā€™d be sick of the world, man, and Iā€™d be head over heels for Diane Court (Ione Skye is breathtaking). Now that Iā€™m almost twice his age, I find myself more enamored by John Mahoney as James Court, and I donā€™t think thatā€™s just because of my love for Frasier. The tragedy of his character is so palpable that I want nothing more than to spring him from his prison cell in a daring, midnight prison break. Maybe one day. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Dawn of the Dead (2004): As a first feature film, this is a strong offering. Zack Snyder, along with the incredible help by the usually amazing James Gunn, has somehow managed to take a classic of the genre and not turn it into a flaming dumpster fire. Thatā€™s usually much harder to accomplish than it should be. However, thereā€™s not a huge amount of depth to the characters. Theyā€™re all caricatures of their upbringing/profession, and until the very end of the film, are never given a chance to be anything more than a police officer, a nurse, or a homophobic loudmouth. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring: I watched the extended edition of this film, which is probably the only way this trilogy should be watched, and it continues to hold up. The visual effects are beginning to show their age, which is no surprise considering the age of these films. For my money, the main draw of this trilogy has never been the visual effects. The adventurous, thrilling, and at times, heart-wrenching story of the Fellowship was what captured my imagination and what keeps this movie engaging. Itā€™s a timeless good vs. evil story that has begun to acquire the same fame and importance that its source material has developed over its long life. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Wall Street: The notoriety this one has developed since its release led me to believe that it would be far better than it ended up being for me. By the end of it, I found its strongest aspect to be Michael Douglasā€™s performance. No wonder why he received an Oscar for it then. Its quick pace and the finance-centered script made it something of an inscrutable watch for someone who has no foot in the world of Wall Street. Beyond that aspect, itā€™s just a fairly good downfall drama that Aaron Sorkin probably would have written if it had been made in the last decade. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Airplane!: Oh boy, did I ever see this one at the wrong time of my life. I should have watched Airplane! when I was a teenager because thatā€™s clearly the target audience for this film. I think I would have appreciated it far more than I did. I would be hard-pressed to call it a bad filmā€”itā€™s not by any stretchā€”but I donā€™t think it achieves the legendary comedy heights that so many people believe it has. This is worth a watch for Lloyd Bridges and Leslie Nielsen in one of their first comedic roles. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Thelma: I canā€™t figure out why, but something about Joachim Trierā€™s films really does it for me. His previous film, Reprise, was a transformative experience. This one takes that same Norwegian drama feel and adds a supernatural aspect to it. It works on every dang level. Some people may be put off by its slow pace, but if thatā€™s not an issue, then youā€™ll be treated to a great mystery. The fraught love story at its core gives the film balance and momentum. A woman who has grown up in a religiously oppressed family falls in love with a woman. Thereā€™s no way thatā€™s not going to be an emotionally charged story. Throw in possible mind powers and youā€™re left with a film thatā€™s going to stick around for a long time. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Army of the Dead: Compared to Dawn of the Dead, this film is clearly an improvement in many ways. Thanks primarily to a healthier budget, the scope of the film, the visual effects, and the sheer bombastic attitude have been elevated to extreme heights. When it comes to something like story, thereā€™s not a huge amount of improvement. Everyoneā€™s trying their damnedest to inject more dimensions into their characters and, aside from Dave Bautista, it largely fails. As with Dawn of the Dead, itā€™s hard to create something that just isnā€™t there on the page. The unique premise makes for thrilling fun, though. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…Ā½)
    • Ralph Breaks the Internet: I truly enjoyed the first film. I thought it was filled with fun and had a lot of heart. Where that one taught the important lesson of loving yourself for who you are, this one throws all of that out with the message that you should try your damnedest to be someone else if itā€™s attractive to you. I feel that so much effort was put into visualizing the grand and intimidating world of the Internet. I wish more was put into asking whether this film truly needed to be made. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Network: I want so badly to call this film something like an adult dramedy. It goes to lengths that seem absurd, including giving our poor, dear Howard Beale his own sensational, televised soapbox from which to yell. The last decades since the release of this film prove that it is instead a sad, prescient satire. This film shows that itā€™s still okay to be ā€œmad as hell,ā€ so long as your anger doesnā€™t interfere with anyone elseā€™s money. If it ever does, there will be hell to pay, because life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only apply to the richest among us. Once it infringes on their money accounts, youā€™re a problem to be squashed (unless you too somehow become rich, and then, hey, youā€™re actually worth a damn). Dream, dream, why donā€™t you, but donā€™t you dare make any real noise. Donā€™t you dare try to lift the boot that is squashing you out. Youā€™re here to make the rich richer, and that is your only value. You could make this movie today without changing a thing and it would still be exactly as relevant. Stillā€¦ there are some extremely funny bits. Faye Dunaway earned the hell out of her Oscar. (ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…ā˜…)
    • Boss Level: I really should have just watched Groundhog Day or Palm Springs. Those were more engaging than this thing. I expected more from Joe Carnahan. (ā˜…ā˜…)

    Total movies watched: 16

    Be sure to follow me on Letterboxd! šŸŽ„

    Yes, itā€™s always a citizen of the U.S.A.ā€™s great civic duty to appear at the local courthouse when summoned for jury service.

    As I experienced earlier today, getting one of those dreaded envelopes in the mail is still a bit of a day ruiner. šŸ˜©

    Wife: has to spend several hours at a bridal shower.

    Me: gets to spend the day at home watching season seven of Bosch.

    I need to get her some cookies because I think I got the better end of the deal here.

    Title Card: The Matrix (1999)

    The title card for the film, The Matrix.

    The Matrix was written and directed by Lana Wachowski and Lilly Wachowski. It was released in 1999. The film was produced by Warner Bros., Village Roadshow Pictures, Groucho Film Partnership, and Silver Pictures. The artists for the main titles were Harold De Jesus and Marcel Valcarce.

    Thomas Anderson, known by his preferred hacking alias ā€œNeo,ā€ played by Keanu Reeves, lives an unsatisfying life and has always suspected that thereā€™s something wrong with the world he lives in. His suspicions are confirmed when he meets Trinity, played by Carrie-Anne Moss. After an unfortunate run-in with a sentient computer program known as Agent Smith, played by Hugo Weaving, she introduces him to a mysterious man named Morpheus, played by Laurence Fishburne. Morpheus explains to him that the world Neo knows is nothing more than a computer simulation, a construct playing out within the minds of comatose humans as they are used as an energy source by intelligent machines. Initially resistant to this staggering revelation, Neo is soon reborn into the real world, a post-apocalyptic hellscape full of human factories and immense dangers. Morpheus believes Neo to be ā€œthe One,ā€ a human who is believed to free humankind. Neo must learn what it means to be alive in the real world, and hopefully, live up to whatā€™s prophesied about him.

    The titles demonstrate an unusual juxtaposition in the film. The Matrix, with all of its advanced technology, is personified through ancient computer screens. Thereā€™s no color besides green. No icons on the screen. No menu bar to be seen anywhere. The vast complexity of this simulation is shown as raindrops of computer characters. The words ā€œThe Matrixā€ are themselves formed from the physical representation of The Matrix: the sickly green on black glow of old computer screens. This feels like an expert melding of the visuals of the film and the complex ideas that drive its story. From moment one, the film gives us a clue as to what is in store for us.

    I recall being held in rapt silence while watching this film in the theater when it came out. You knew you were about to watch something special when those characters started falling from the top of the screen. One of the most thrilling sequences in film history follows this opening title: a squad of police officers and three relentless, terrifying Agents surround the building in which Trinity is holed up. She must fight her way out and into safety, or die trying. To this day, itā€™s still completely effective. Give that scene a watch again. šŸŽž

    Google, Facebook Pressure Falls Short as Antitrust Measures Advance in House Committee ā†—

    Iā€™ll readily admit that I donā€™t know as much about this burgeoning antitrust legislation as I should. However, does this ā€œAmerican Choice and Innovation Online Actā€ mean that I have the choice to keep any new Apple device I get largely the same as I have them now? Doesnā€™t seem like it.

    I believe that giving the ability of smaller businesses to fairly compete with larger ones is generally good. Lower the cut Apple takes on sales. Make it easier, i.e., not impossible, to go to a companyā€™s website where I can subscribe to their service. Remove the fear that some developers have over dealing with these large companies. However, donā€™t throw the word ā€œchoiceā€ around without understanding and acknowledging that it should cut both ways. I donā€™t want the overall Apple experience I know and love to be destroyed because, for example, Epic wants its own app store on Appleā€™s devices.

    Iā€™ll also readily admit that I may be singing a different tune if I were a software developer working with Appleā€™s platforms. As a consumer, though, Iā€™ve had no problem with my past Apple experiences and would like the ability to keep that going for myself. Thatā€™s my choice.

    I wish there was a version of YouTube Premium that only disabled the incessant, terrible ads that play during videos. I donā€™t care about any of the other features. At the moment, twelve dollars a month is too much for just ad removal.

    For the second time in as many weeks, the power has gone off at home. Thankfully, itā€™s only been happening super early in the morning.

    Still, it feels like a dreadful omen for how the rest of the summer is going to be.

    Title Card: Citizen Kane (1941)

    The title card for the film, Citizen Kane.

    Citizen Kane was written by Herman Mankiewicz and Orson Welles and was directed by Orson Welles. It was released in 1941. The film was produced by RKO Radio Pictures and Mercury Productions.

    On his deathbed, the elderly Charles Foster Kane, played by Orson Welles, utters one final word before passing: ā€œRosebud.ā€ Kane, a wealthy newspaper publisher and industrial magnate, has always garnered much attention, so his death is big news. His last word presents a mystery that newsreel producer Jerry Thompson, played by William Alland, is tasked with uncovering. Through interviews with Kaneā€™s friends and associates, more is learned about the history of this prolific and imposing man. His newspaper business, his failed romantic relationships, and the great highs and lows of his life are described by those who knew him. By the end of this tale, there is a greater understanding of the man, but will anyone ever discover the true meaning of the word ā€œRosebudā€?

    At this point, thereā€™s probably little to be gained from me waxing on about the importance of this monumental film. The subject matter has been talked to death. The character of Charles Foster Kane, and his clear inspiration in William Randolph Hearst, have been dissected enough. Heck, most everyone probably knows what the heck ā€œRosebudā€ is by now.

    Instead, what strikes me most about this title card is not the film that follows, but instead the imposing nature of the letters. The words ā€œCITIZEN KANEā€ take up the entire screen. Theyā€™re as large as the film itself, which is to say, larger than life. They tower over the audience in a pompous, arrogant, and self-important manner, as if to reflect the personality thatā€™s central to the film. However, behind that grand faƧade lies an insecure man who longs for the comforts of his childhood. The letters of the title card might be seen as something of a put-on. A shield that Kane can use to hide behind, all the while wishing that he could recapture his youthful happiness while hiding away from the dread that comes with facing the world he built for himself. The title card personifies a man who is theatrical and legendary for the world, yet diminutive in private.

    Also, Iā€™ve really been captured by the first trailer for the film. Itā€™s still unlike anything youā€™ll ever see. For a film that was released in 1941, it feels far ahead of its time. Considering how unusual the trailer is, itā€™s probably far ahead of any time. Instead of a tapestry of shots from the film that describe the general plot, weā€™re treated to a voice-over from Welles himself, narrating aspects of the production and introducing many of its main players. Give this fascinating thing a watch. šŸŽž

    Iā€™m finding myself less interested in absorbing any sort of news and more interested in just watching a lot of ā€˜90s WB cartoon shows.

    Itā€™s taking all of my effort not to complain about how hot itā€™s going to be today and this week.

    Aaaaand… Iā€™ve already failed at that.1


    1. But seriously, itā€™s going to be so damn hot! And in mid-June! I miss the relative weather niceness that I grew up with in the ā€˜90s. ↩︎

    Title Card: Raised by Wolves (2020)

    The title card for the tv show, Raised by Wolves.

    Raised by Wolves was created by Aaron Guzikowski. It premiered on HBO Max on September 3, 2020. The show was produced by Film Afrika Worldwide, Lit Entertainment Group, Scott Free Productions, and Studio T. The titles were directed by Steven Small and created at Studio AKA.

    In the future, there is a war between the devout Mithraic believers and the atheists. Following the destruction of Earth, two androids are tasked with traveling to Kepler 22-b and raising children on this new planet. Mother, played by Amanda Collin, and Father, played by Abubakar Salim, develop a small community with their children. All is as well as this new life can be, until a straggling colony of Mithraic humans crash lands on the planet after Mother destroys their ship. The remaining humans manage strife within their ranks while trying to save their children that have been taken by the androids. Within this colony are two atheists who are hiding their true identities: Marcus (once known as Caleb), played by Travis Fimmel, and Sue (once Mary), played by Niamh Algar. Marcusā€™s devout atheism (and Sueā€™s trust in him) is tested when he begins to believe that he has a divine presence living inside him.

    I love a good Ridley Scott production and this one has it all: androids, mysterious planets, human drama (even amongst the non-humans). While the famed director may not have been the leading creative force behind the show, his name is still powerful enough to make this show required viewing. Now that Iā€™ve finished the first season, Iā€™m left with a thousand more questions than when I started watching it. What secrets does Kepler 22-b really hold? Why does Marcus believe heā€™s basically the second coming of this Mithraic god, and is it actually one of the androidsā€™ children? What in the absolute hell was that flying snake monster that Mother birthed? Iā€™m really looking forward to the second season where I hope many of those questions will be answered. Iā€™m especially hoping that this show wonā€™t be axed because itā€™s too expensive for the viewership it might be receiving.

    This show is a great example of how to tell a story without bludgeoning an audience over the head with a mountain of exposition in the first episode. By the end of the first episode, you are not going to know what brought the androids to Kepler 22-b, you wonā€™t know the full extent of the war thatā€™s happened on Earth, and you sure as heck wonā€™t know the full capabilities of all characters involved. Thereā€™s nothing but hidden layers here. I like a show that invites its viewers to unravel its mystery slowly. It requires a lot, but it gives a lot in return.

    The full opening titles for this show are transformative to behold. Iā€™ve never seen anything quite like it. The dark, painterly quality of them makes for a melancholic and tense mood. Accompanied by the ethereal voice of Mariam Wallentin and the composition by Ben Frost, the titles are transformed nearly into a contradiction. Some may find only gloom in them and I wouldnā€™t disagree with that assessment. However, I think thereā€™s also great beauty in the pairing of these images and the music. Even if you donā€™t want to watch the show, I think the titles are worth your time.1


    1. Now if we could just get the theme song onto the various streaming platforms! I would love to listen to this song without the aid of HBO Max or YouTube. ↩︎

    I enjoyed Appleā€™s opening keynote presentation for this yearā€™s WWDC. It wasnā€™t a particularly flashy eventā€”this far into the COVID pandemic, theyā€™ve toned down their ā€œlook at meā€ camera work and are mostly focusing on delivering information,1 of which there was a lot.

    However, what I did find frustrating, as someone who enjoys using their expansive iPad Pro for both play and work, is the continued lack of extended display support for this device.2 Itā€™s an unpleasant situation that persists, year after year. There was a lot of speculation that 2021 would be the year that iPad fans would be gifted with the ability to completely fill our widescreen displays, run different apps on different screens, and move content between our devices and the monitors to which they can be connected. Alas, that did not happen. Weā€™re stuck with the inferior mirroring support weā€™ve always had.

    The puzzling part of all this is the new iPad Pros have the same M1 chip that can be found inside Appleā€™s far more display-capable Mac computers. There should be nothing preventing the M1 iPad Pros from enjoying the same external display abilities that are given to all of the Macs. And yet, here we are again. I can think of two reasons why this might be the case:

    1. Thereā€™s a new, hopefully cheaper, Apple-branded monitor on the way and theyā€™re waiting for its release to unveil awesome new iPad features.
    2. This continues to be an artificial limitation set by the perpetually lagging iPadOS software.

    Thereā€™s no evidence to back up the first possibility. Heck, they just spent a large portion of their April 2021 event talking up the truly amazing mini-LED display in the new 12.9ā€ iPad Pro. It may undercut the unique advantage it has if they were to release a product that removes that advantage so soon after its respective event.3 Why buy the 12.9ā€ iPad and that hypothetical monitor when I can just get the monitor for the iPad I already have?

    Indeed, thereā€™s no definite indication from the people that matter, i.e., Apple, that thereā€™s any sort of forthcoming monitor. Their current stance boils down to ā€œif you want an Apple monitor, then you can feel free to spend at least $5,000 on our glorious Pro Display XDR.ā€ At the moment, any possible Apple alternative to that display lives only in our collective dreams.

    The far more likely possibility is that iPadOS 15 continues the long tradition of the iPadā€™s software falling far short of its amazing, powerful hardware. This is also the sadder possibility. While we were gifted with a preview of some truly excellent upcoming features during this yearā€™s presentation, to omit the sort of external monitor support that they grant their other computers sends the message that Apple still doesnā€™t fully believe their own iPad messaging. An iPad can be so much more than ā€œjust a computer,ā€ but despite what they think, itā€™s still a computer. Either all that or theyā€™re continuing to ignore the clear fact that many people do real work on their iPads. Both are likely. I donā€™t know which is worse.

    What would make the iPad ā€œmore than a computerā€ isnā€™t just the Apple Pencil, touching the screen, or ARKit. It would be the ability to do all that a computer can currently do and then more.

    But hey, maybe itā€™ll happen in iPadOS 16ā€¦ šŸŽ


    1. Nor is it ever Appleā€™s obligation to provide a Hollywood caliber event with pyrotechnics, extreme visual effects, and a live band. We could have just had Craig Federighi sitting on a stool and reading off a teleprompter, a perfectly acceptable alternative. Theyā€™re not required to present entertainment, no matter what the internet thinks. Weā€™re all lucky that Apple chooses to do more than that to varying degrees. ↩︎

    2. Iā€™m confident in saying that @pimoore has got my back on this one. ↩︎

    3. Ah ha, thereā€™s a third reason! ↩︎

    I think my favorite part of WWDC is making the determined choice to stay off of places like Twitter while the presentation is happening. I sure as heck donā€™t need that much cynical snark in my life. šŸŽ

    Thereā€™s been increased talk online about UFOs lately. After spending the morning with a stupidly, insanely rich couple, I can safely say that the people who are really not of this world are the ridiculously wealthy.

    Title Card: Days of Heaven (1978)

    The title card for the film, Days of Heaven, featuring an old photo of a city street behind text.

    Days of Heaven was written and directed by Terrence Malick. It was released in 1978. The film was produced by Paramount Pictures. The main titles were designed by Dan Perri.

    After accidentally killing his supervisor, Bill, played by Richard Gere, flees to Texas with his girlfriend, Abby, played by Brooke Adams, and his younger sister, Linda, played by Linda Manz. The trio become employed as wheat harvesters on a farm owned by a character played by Sam Shepard. Realizing that the farmerā€™s failing health presents a cruel financial opportunity, Bill and Abby scheme to take his fortune by having her marry the farmer. As they often do, their best-laid plans fall apart when the farmer learns of Bill and Abbyā€™s true relationship.

    This film was famed for its beautiful cinematography and that still holds true today. There is some impressive filmmaking happening every year, and yet, Days of Heaven is still a towering presence. The unusual circumstances surrounding its cinematography are equally notableā€”NĆ©stor Almendros, the filmā€™s cinematographer, was beginning to lose his sight during the production. He had assistants take photographs of scenes and would then examine them with strong lenses. The troubled production ran so over schedule that Almendros had to leave to attend to a prior filmmaking commitment. He tasked Haskell Wexler, a legend in his own right, to finish the film in his stead. What resulted was a moving film that has stuck in my head ever since I first saw it. Itā€™s elegant in the finest sense of the word.

    The improvisational filmmaking style that Malick and Almendros developed was frustrating to most of the crew. Damn the lighting setups! Forget about intricately blocked scenes! Call sheets? Who needs ā€˜em?! This was a most unusual production at the time,1 but it laid the groundwork for Malickā€™s style in later films. Itā€™s remarkable to see how formative this film was for him. With it, he developed a style of serendipity. This is on full display in films like The New World and The Tree of Life where the camera is an invisible participant in the actorā€™s performances, instead of a central fixture. Days of Heaven is notable in itself, but its legacy also continues to reverberate through Malickā€™s work.

    Thereā€™s a moving essay written by The Criterion Collectionā€™s staff writer and social media director, Hillary Weston, about Sam Shepardā€™s quiet, elegiac performance. For anyone whoā€™s ever been moved by the work of this beautiful writer and actor, itā€™s a lovely read. šŸŽž


    1. And still is for nearly every film thatā€™s ever been produced. ↩︎

ā† Newer Posts Older Posts ā†’