Just a few brief things, one of course being this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. It includes a reference to my 1998 "Gosk, Part 2", and also a reference to last week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, which can be found in its entirety on my previous (2.8.09) blog. Incidentally, the February 13th Monk (which the following videoclip regards) is the second-to-last episode of the season:
Another thing I might mention would be the line on last night's Saturday Night Live, "I’m having a cattail sown on my upper butt so my little daughter will wanna play with me" (in the sketch about the three businessmen in a meeting). I relate this to my "Teddy Tinyfingers" sketch idea (for an additional reason than what is generally known, an inside matter SNL has referred to in the past which I steer clear of discussing).
And finally, because of the same matter alluded to but not detailed in the previous paragraph, I attribute the fact that Paul McCartney had a stuffed animal on his piano named "Ashley" at last week's Grammy Awards to his desire to give a shout-out for my benefit, as he has been known to do (see many of my previous blogs). I'm also thinking that his girlfriend during the 1960s, Jane Asher, might be in there somewhere.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Handful
In addition to this week’s Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, and another videoclip, related to my comedy sketch idea, "Teddy Tinyfingers", I first have a few other things to report:
A Few Other Things To Report First
1. The special edition of the show, “The Office” that followed the Superbowl last week made substantial inside references to my material, unfortunately, it gets a little complicated to explain. That leaves it with those who trust my facility for identifying these things believing it, and the rest, well, nobody has time for everybody. As to the specifics, I’m sure I’ll go into it someday, perhaps after next year’s Superbowl?
2. This week’s “Life On Mars” (2.4.09) made several inside references for my benefit. Again, I’m not going into specifics at this time. I will observe that I made a reference to “Life On Mars” in my November 22, 2008 blog, and from that moment anticipated that I would eventually be seeing them make an abundantly clear reference to my material. At one point I thought last week’s (1.28.09) “Life On Mars” included a reference, but changed my mind when I saw it back. Now I’m not so sure. This is not entirely unlike the time I wrote a comedy sketch idea around “Law & Order, Criminal Intent”, followed by that show making inside references to my material.
3. This year's Grammy Awards, not unlike any number of major award shows in the past, appears to be making use of a concept of mine. Specifically, the backdrop of little cubes drifting around behind the presenters bears a significant resemblance to my use of bricks drifting around during a section of the music video for my song, "Whatever Happened".
"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Christian Bale
Besides my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, I also have with this blog another videoclip, regarding my January 14th comedy sketch idea, “Teddy Tinyfingers”. But first a few words about Christian Bale. I notice that all this talk about his on-the-set “tirade” actually began just two weeks following my "Teddy Tinyfingers" comedy sketch idea, through the surfacing of a recording of Bale. The Bale story first broke back in July 2008, but never took off until the recording was heard. This is unusual, for a half-year-old story of this variety to suddenly receive new life in this way. I further observe that my “Teddy Tinyfingers” comedy sketch idea regards an on-the-set argument between Johnny Depp and Tim Burton (my fellow CalArts alum on whom I have been a major influence). I therefore wonder whether it isn't upon me to weigh in on the Christian Bale matter, which I see as having potentially been given new life by “Teddy Tinyfingers” (an extreme statement only to those unfamiliar with the kind of impact my works have been known to have): I find it most interesting that Mr. Bale is the person who gave that incredibly inspired performance in “American Psycho”, the best performance of his career, or for that matter what would be a great performance in anybody’s career. In that movie he artfully delivered a humorous insight into the idea that people who are perfectly behaved, people who might ostracize a member of their own circle should they so much as have a hair out of place or perform a public faux pas, may on the inside just as easily also be sadistic, twisted psychotics, perhaps an outgrowth of a suppressive social world - a social world with values so disconnected, as to grant its greatest approval only to those most adept at observing proper social decorum. Who doesn’t appreciate the emotions expressed in Christian Bale’s real-life tirade, and immediately forgive? And who doesn’t also get that emotions dwelling in actors on film sets cannot be viewed by normal standards? So why so a short leash, so to speak, when one looks at the public response? Let's keep it real: Christian Bale is entitled. Of course, one nevertheless understands his public apology, as we've all had to placate those devoid of all insight.
"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Others
And so now, a special videoclip regarding, well, see for yourself:
Monk/Steinhoff 2.6.09 Videoclip
So finally, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. (I hope those all about Monk appreciate why one of the moments from the February 6th "Monk" episode was determined to belong more in the previous rather than the following videoclip.)
A Few Other Things To Report First
1. The special edition of the show, “The Office” that followed the Superbowl last week made substantial inside references to my material, unfortunately, it gets a little complicated to explain. That leaves it with those who trust my facility for identifying these things believing it, and the rest, well, nobody has time for everybody. As to the specifics, I’m sure I’ll go into it someday, perhaps after next year’s Superbowl?
2. This week’s “Life On Mars” (2.4.09) made several inside references for my benefit. Again, I’m not going into specifics at this time. I will observe that I made a reference to “Life On Mars” in my November 22, 2008 blog, and from that moment anticipated that I would eventually be seeing them make an abundantly clear reference to my material. At one point I thought last week’s (1.28.09) “Life On Mars” included a reference, but changed my mind when I saw it back. Now I’m not so sure. This is not entirely unlike the time I wrote a comedy sketch idea around “Law & Order, Criminal Intent”, followed by that show making inside references to my material.
3. This year's Grammy Awards, not unlike any number of major award shows in the past, appears to be making use of a concept of mine. Specifically, the backdrop of little cubes drifting around behind the presenters bears a significant resemblance to my use of bricks drifting around during a section of the music video for my song, "Whatever Happened".
"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Christian Bale
Besides my Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, I also have with this blog another videoclip, regarding my January 14th comedy sketch idea, “Teddy Tinyfingers”. But first a few words about Christian Bale. I notice that all this talk about his on-the-set “tirade” actually began just two weeks following my "Teddy Tinyfingers" comedy sketch idea, through the surfacing of a recording of Bale. The Bale story first broke back in July 2008, but never took off until the recording was heard. This is unusual, for a half-year-old story of this variety to suddenly receive new life in this way. I further observe that my “Teddy Tinyfingers” comedy sketch idea regards an on-the-set argument between Johnny Depp and Tim Burton (my fellow CalArts alum on whom I have been a major influence). I therefore wonder whether it isn't upon me to weigh in on the Christian Bale matter, which I see as having potentially been given new life by “Teddy Tinyfingers” (an extreme statement only to those unfamiliar with the kind of impact my works have been known to have): I find it most interesting that Mr. Bale is the person who gave that incredibly inspired performance in “American Psycho”, the best performance of his career, or for that matter what would be a great performance in anybody’s career. In that movie he artfully delivered a humorous insight into the idea that people who are perfectly behaved, people who might ostracize a member of their own circle should they so much as have a hair out of place or perform a public faux pas, may on the inside just as easily also be sadistic, twisted psychotics, perhaps an outgrowth of a suppressive social world - a social world with values so disconnected, as to grant its greatest approval only to those most adept at observing proper social decorum. Who doesn’t appreciate the emotions expressed in Christian Bale’s real-life tirade, and immediately forgive? And who doesn’t also get that emotions dwelling in actors on film sets cannot be viewed by normal standards? So why so a short leash, so to speak, when one looks at the public response? Let's keep it real: Christian Bale is entitled. Of course, one nevertheless understands his public apology, as we've all had to placate those devoid of all insight.
"Teddy Tinyfingers" and Others
And so now, a special videoclip regarding, well, see for yourself:
Monk/Steinhoff 2.6.09 Videoclip
So finally, this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. (I hope those all about Monk appreciate why one of the moments from the February 6th "Monk" episode was determined to belong more in the previous rather than the following videoclip.)
Sunday, February 1, 2009
Looking Through A Sad Onion
Monk/Steinhoff
Time for this week's Monk/Steinhoff videoclip. The work of mine involved, "Snow On The Way" (posted on YouTube in 2006 and archive.org in 2008) is not among the videos of mine most often referenced. An additional obscure factor, first noted in my YouTube Monk/Steinhoff videoclip of July 27, 2008, is that sometimes the context is expanded by the "Monk" people, so that an item they include one week designed by them for me to draw a circle around, also proves to be of significance to the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip the following week.
So between these two obscure factors, I expect that at the same moment I am making sense to people with a certain amount of brain power, I will simultaneously appear to be stretching things/contriving things in the opinion of others (which also opens the door wider for those merely posturing as skeptics to take a shot at me). Yet I'm glad to see my other work in the "spotlight", or whatever kind of light this is:
As I've mentioned in the past, for quite some time any situation I find myself in, whether it be a work situation, or a situation where the makers of a TV show involve themselves with my material over a period of time, any situation I'm in long enough, becomes infiltrated by people with hostile motives regarding me. This is something one might be more likely to accept as the experience of someone who has had a high profile over a long period of time, who might collect powerful enemies in life. Well, I have collected some very powerful enemies, and I've seen this infiltration too many times to rationalize that it is some subjective delusion. Those not victimized in this manner, on the other hand, are free to rationalize all they want. I bring this up because I see it happening increasingly in relation to "Monk," specific things I am not describing here.
January 31, 2009 Saturday Night Live
Though I did not write a specific sketch idea for this installment of this show, that hasn't generally prevented them from finding a way to put in something (such as a something gained through infiltration of my work situation). I noticed this week on SNL in some piece they mentioned that, "even John Kerry was funny". A few years ago when John Kerry got into trouble for his misfired joke, which he did immediately appropos of something I did, "Recipe For Fun" (on YouTube, about Heinz Ketchup (Kerry's wife's company) as a necessary comedy ingredient), I wrote to a Paul McCartney intermediary that McCartney should be in a comedy sketch relating to "Recipe For Fun". I felt partly responsible to generate support of some kind for Kerry, particularly as he had once been the Democratic Presidential Candidate. Eight days after my communication to McCartney asking that he be in a comedy sketch, McCartney made a surprise appearance on SNL, in a sketch with Steve Martin about someone putting poison in someone else's drink. The sketch subject clearly relates to the title, "Recipe For Fun". How clear this was to Kerry I do not know. So with Steve Martin being the host this week, and with the reference to Kerry's infamous misfired joke incident by saying that even Kerry was funny, I see a connection. One might or might not also look at the fact that Martin was in a sketch this past week where he took Ecstasy thinking he was eating mints.
The only three comedy sketch ideas I have written for SNL since the September '08 TV season began have all resulted in big Obama news stuff (perhaps I will review this in a future blog, complete with evidence showing date posted in relation to following events). Furthermore, the interpretations of my sketches through the "medium" of actual occurrences have not been too far from the intent, as compared to a good number of SNL's interpretations. This might be considered by those who presume that there's nothing so heavy going on when I pick up a pen, or presume there's no enormous demand on me to thusly bring something into the world that bears fruit.
Friday, January 30, 2009
You Bet
There might just be a thing or two that could be added to this videoclip regarding Colbert, McCartney and myself:
Now I already know this one's not for beginners, it asks that a few things be taken on faith, and all because of the unfair reality that not everything that happens in this world is documented. And not everyone comes forward to corroborate what cannot be verified in any other way. As a case in point, I was sitting on my couch a few minutes ago, yet will never be able to prove it to anyone. Fortunately, that action is of no consequence and so I shall hope that I will not be judged too harshly for asserting I was sitting on the couch. Should I leave out everything of consequence that I cannot document? Thereby not requiring anyone to take anything I say on faith? I feel I have earned some credit among those who have been keeping track of what I can prove, so no, I do not truly feel that I am burdening people when I ask that they take certain things on faith. Though one may find there are actions in this world that one cannot prove actually took place, yet many such actions are significant and worth communicating. So bye-bye beginners/lowest common denominators, at least this time around.
One Thing That May Have Belonged In This Colbert-McCartney-Steinhoff Videoclip
The title of my second-to-last blog was, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench." This title was partly designed to address an important aspect of the "Monk" episode to which the videoclip refers. In the "Monk" episode, Monk is concerned that there is some "catch" behind the Gena Rowlands character's wish to be his friend. In this I perceived a common concern experienced by many people, and it is not difficult to see where people in show biz are likely to be coming from when they express this type of concern: the idea that underneath the engaging of their emotions people are really trying to advance themselves. The title of my blog, in the context of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, brings to that discussion the relevance of the degree of need, an element sometimes considered taboo in such discussions. The Indoor Bench aspect of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip regards a sockless person being given socks, the Outdoor Bench aspect regards a person being given a scarf. The videoclip includes the question of whether these items are dispensable or indispensable. Thus, how far does the degree of need play into things, and even perhaps, influence issues of morality underlying real motives when people engage our emotions?
One statement in such a discussion might eventually be, "Does this mean that a circumstance could arise where there can be any morality in one person eating another, if the need is great enough?" This is part of the discussion that took place between Colbert and McCartney. Of course, this would be among the more extreme statements one could make in such a discussion, however, it is precisely by following things to their extreme logical conclusions that important points are often brought to the surface. This is often a function of comedy. In this instance, one is immediately made more conscious of what many already know: however great the need, as valuable as one holds one's own life, it is not something for which one must automatically feel inclined to pay any price. Did "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" influence the decision for Colbert and McCartney to go there? In my opinion, it is possible, because I see it as a likely direction the conversation would go in were one to follow the statement made in my blog title to its logical conclusion. I saw it in the blog title before the McCartney interview on The Colbert Show, more or less.
Incidentally, immediately following the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog, in my last blog (entitled simply, "Indoor Bench"), I pointed out that Kiefer Sutherland and Tony Shaloub sitting at the same table at the SAG Awards appeared related to what I had previously indicated in a January 19th blog ("Traffic On The Unbeaten Path"). Sitting at the same table relates to the title, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench", thus the nearly identical title I gave that blog.
People sometimes deliberately do things to simultaneously address more than one thing. I therefore do not consider it contradictory that I look at the eating people discussion on Colbert as having been prompted in part by the carrot nose in "Frozen," yet also possibly by the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog title. Sometimes people are even obliged to only take actions that serve multiple purposes, though it may spread their chips around the roulette table to the point where a win is seriously mitigated by the losses.
The next Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (regarding the January 30th episode) is on the way.
Now I already know this one's not for beginners, it asks that a few things be taken on faith, and all because of the unfair reality that not everything that happens in this world is documented. And not everyone comes forward to corroborate what cannot be verified in any other way. As a case in point, I was sitting on my couch a few minutes ago, yet will never be able to prove it to anyone. Fortunately, that action is of no consequence and so I shall hope that I will not be judged too harshly for asserting I was sitting on the couch. Should I leave out everything of consequence that I cannot document? Thereby not requiring anyone to take anything I say on faith? I feel I have earned some credit among those who have been keeping track of what I can prove, so no, I do not truly feel that I am burdening people when I ask that they take certain things on faith. Though one may find there are actions in this world that one cannot prove actually took place, yet many such actions are significant and worth communicating. So bye-bye beginners/lowest common denominators, at least this time around.
One Thing That May Have Belonged In This Colbert-McCartney-Steinhoff Videoclip
The title of my second-to-last blog was, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench." This title was partly designed to address an important aspect of the "Monk" episode to which the videoclip refers. In the "Monk" episode, Monk is concerned that there is some "catch" behind the Gena Rowlands character's wish to be his friend. In this I perceived a common concern experienced by many people, and it is not difficult to see where people in show biz are likely to be coming from when they express this type of concern: the idea that underneath the engaging of their emotions people are really trying to advance themselves. The title of my blog, in the context of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, brings to that discussion the relevance of the degree of need, an element sometimes considered taboo in such discussions. The Indoor Bench aspect of the Monk/Steinhoff videoclip regards a sockless person being given socks, the Outdoor Bench aspect regards a person being given a scarf. The videoclip includes the question of whether these items are dispensable or indispensable. Thus, how far does the degree of need play into things, and even perhaps, influence issues of morality underlying real motives when people engage our emotions?
One statement in such a discussion might eventually be, "Does this mean that a circumstance could arise where there can be any morality in one person eating another, if the need is great enough?" This is part of the discussion that took place between Colbert and McCartney. Of course, this would be among the more extreme statements one could make in such a discussion, however, it is precisely by following things to their extreme logical conclusions that important points are often brought to the surface. This is often a function of comedy. In this instance, one is immediately made more conscious of what many already know: however great the need, as valuable as one holds one's own life, it is not something for which one must automatically feel inclined to pay any price. Did "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" influence the decision for Colbert and McCartney to go there? In my opinion, it is possible, because I see it as a likely direction the conversation would go in were one to follow the statement made in my blog title to its logical conclusion. I saw it in the blog title before the McCartney interview on The Colbert Show, more or less.
Incidentally, immediately following the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog, in my last blog (entitled simply, "Indoor Bench"), I pointed out that Kiefer Sutherland and Tony Shaloub sitting at the same table at the SAG Awards appeared related to what I had previously indicated in a January 19th blog ("Traffic On The Unbeaten Path"). Sitting at the same table relates to the title, "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench", thus the nearly identical title I gave that blog.
People sometimes deliberately do things to simultaneously address more than one thing. I therefore do not consider it contradictory that I look at the eating people discussion on Colbert as having been prompted in part by the carrot nose in "Frozen," yet also possibly by the "Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench" blog title. Sometimes people are even obliged to only take actions that serve multiple purposes, though it may spread their chips around the roulette table to the point where a win is seriously mitigated by the losses.
The next Monk/Steinhoff videoclip (regarding the January 30th episode) is on the way.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
Indoor Table
Brief Note:
In my January 19, 2009 blog I stated, "I will leave these Spielberg - Sutherland - Shaloub - Pitt - et-al connections for you to interconnect...."
Tonight, less than one week later during the SAG Awards, we were shown Sutherland and Shaloub (as well as Shaloub's wife, Brooke Adams) sitting together at the same table having a conversation. Prior to this, has anyone ever mentioned these two in the same breath? I might also add that Mr. Sutherland had the honor of being the first presenter of the night.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Indoor Bench, Outdoor Bench
Time again for the weekly Monk/Steinhoff videoclip, it being that nearly every episode of the TV show "Monk" makes deliberate reference to my material, usually references from among my three main live action videos, "Mall Man," "Gosk," and Steinhoff's Dostoyevsky's "Uncle's Dream," each of which can be found at archive.org, and regarding each of which I am the auteur.
This week I've excluded a few things I regarded as references, in order to keep things simpler for the lowest common denominator among us:
Nevertheless, there is enough here for anyone:
This week I've excluded a few things I regarded as references, in order to keep things simpler for the lowest common denominator among us:
- This week's "Monk" had Randy saying with a certain rhythm and intonation, with regard to Monk's rearranged furniture, "I kind of like it," followed by the Captain tilting his head, which added up to a reference to the moment in "Gosk, Part 2" when Tuxert, noticing the tan nose of the otherwise blue-skinned Dockert, says with a certain rhythm and intonation, "I kind of like it," tilting her head;
- I also saw the reference in this week's "Monk" to my Ringo Starr anecdote, or rather an anecdote regarding Ringo Starr that was related to me by a friend who was there. "Monk" made a reference to this same anecdote in March 2005 for the season finale.
Nevertheless, there is enough here for anyone:
Friday, January 23, 2009
To Have Won
The first week of Barack Obama's presidency has ended (for those who think of Friday as the end of the week, even in the case of weeks that begin on a Tuesday) with the kind of crystallizing soundbite from the President that the media seeks, "I won". The following quote from the Wall Street Journal blog can be found repeated throughout the media:
"January 23, 2009, 2:32 pm
"Obama to GOP: ‘I Won’
"....With those two words — 'I won' — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .... Democratic and Republican aides confirmed the exchange. A White House spokesman said he wasn’t immediately aware of the exchange. The aides who heard the remarks stressed that it wasn’t as boldly partisan as it might sound."
What you will not learn about from those discussing this is the fact that those two words are identical to the closing line of "Teddy Tinyfingers," the January 14, 2009 comedy sketch idea I submitted for the January 17th "Saturday Night Live", to which considerable reference has been made in my blogs (including mention of an inside reference to it on the January 17th SNL).
The performance by Sting and Stevie Wonder of Sting's song, "Brand New Day" was the closing song and climax of "The Neighborhood Ball: An Inauguration Celebration," broadcast the evening of Inauguration Day live on ABC TV (and broadcast taped on the west coast). Of all the shows on TV relating to the inauguration on Inauguration Day, this was the primary mass consumption television product (other than the Inauguration itself), and included the President, his wife, the Vice President, and his wife (among others).
My previous blog discussed how that same closing song, "Brand New Day," resulted from a song I created, "Brand New River of Love".
Is it really so difficult to figure out from whence came Obama's choice of words, "I won," at this point in time/history?
"January 23, 2009, 2:32 pm
"Obama to GOP: ‘I Won’
"....With those two words — 'I won' — the Democratic president let the Republicans know that debate has been put to rest Nov. 4 .... Democratic and Republican aides confirmed the exchange. A White House spokesman said he wasn’t immediately aware of the exchange. The aides who heard the remarks stressed that it wasn’t as boldly partisan as it might sound."
What you will not learn about from those discussing this is the fact that those two words are identical to the closing line of "Teddy Tinyfingers," the January 14, 2009 comedy sketch idea I submitted for the January 17th "Saturday Night Live", to which considerable reference has been made in my blogs (including mention of an inside reference to it on the January 17th SNL).
The performance by Sting and Stevie Wonder of Sting's song, "Brand New Day" was the closing song and climax of "The Neighborhood Ball: An Inauguration Celebration," broadcast the evening of Inauguration Day live on ABC TV (and broadcast taped on the west coast). Of all the shows on TV relating to the inauguration on Inauguration Day, this was the primary mass consumption television product (other than the Inauguration itself), and included the President, his wife, the Vice President, and his wife (among others).
My previous blog discussed how that same closing song, "Brand New Day," resulted from a song I created, "Brand New River of Love".
Is it really so difficult to figure out from whence came Obama's choice of words, "I won," at this point in time/history?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
