Review: Hearing

Saying Man: "I'm for abortion"

Bad Hearer: "You've had four abortions?"

Saying Man: "That was actually close- your hearing isn't all that bad"

Bad Hearer: "You were wondering if Glenn Close, while teething, is really your dad?"

Saying Man: "This can only go on for about 2 more lines before it gets old"

Bad Hearer: "Juniper square bush helicopters are transferable in warm climates, strange motivator?"

Saying Man: "Shave and a haircut"

Bad Hearer: "Tube hits? What?"

Saying Man: "Alright, you're just fucking with me, I know you have some hearing problems, but they seem greatly exaggerated for effect."

Bad Hearer: "Sorry, I can't really hear you, I was just fucking with you before, but sometimes my hearing goes bad when I sense annoyance. Now tell me about your 3rd abortion."

Review: Rugrats, Season 1, Episode 11

Rugrats existed as a novelty show, because a show about Babies has never been done before. The first season meandered its merry way, being cute and depending upon putting babies in unfamiliar places ie a movie theater or a grocery store. It wasn't until the 11th episode of the first season, that a stride was hit. A perfect storm of all the things that made Rugrats a plaintive character study of innocent eyes viewing a world full of plans laid before them.

The 11th episode featured the 2 stories: "Touchdown Tommy" and "The Trial". Later years of Rugrats we go to see the stretch of each of the characters, and both these episodes give us the glimpses of that full effect.

'Touchdown Tommy' has the babies in helmets as means to protect themselves so that their fathers can watch football. Tommy, being reasonably the favorite baby, is given chocolate milk, and while the babies are left alone- an ensuing brawl for that chocolate milk ensues. The brawl is instigated by, as all great Rugrats episodes are instigated by, Angelica. Angelica starts off badmouthing her current situation of wearing a "stupid baby helmet", then as Phil and Lil discover the benefits of headstanding in the helmets- Angelica shows off her 2 plus years experience in headstanding, and when the chocolate milk finally shows up- Angelica goes in pure selfish mode, storming Tommy for the bottle. The babies shenanigans are wonderfully play-by-played by the football announcers commenting on the 'Ultra Bowl' the fathers are watching (one of the announcers played by pre-fame Jeremy Piven). Wonderful specifics of each players names, Tommy being a ring-leader, Phil and Lil being little rough housers, and Angelica exerting her force over the much smaller babies- all are shown here.

Then comes 'The Trial'. A crowning moment in Rugrats lore. All the character traits are exhibited here. Tommy's Clown Lamp is broken, therefore we see him cry, and now we relate and feel sorry for him. Who broke the lamp? Phil and Lil act as the usual suspects- being the ones to always play to fast and too eager. But they wouldn't break Tommy's lamp. Chuckie admits to wanting to break Tommy's lamp because it is scary, and Chuckie, as we finally see, is afraid. The Rugrats didn't use Chuckie's fears too much coming into this episode. Chuckie was just the reluctant one to go along with Tommy. Now we see, and are set up for, a motherless child- already with an eye problem- afraid of the world around him. And who can blame him? He was attacked by a monster in this episode, and then badgered into admitting he wanted to break the lamp. But he didn't. He's Tommy's best friend. So of course we know who broke the lamp. The Great Instigator- Angelica. First off, lets note, it is a superb bit of story that Angelica is Tommy's cousin. We get to see her all the time, and we see that she does not care about these babies at all. She is just a selfish terrible toddler, picking on weak underlings. "The Trial" is Angelica at her instigatoriest. She sets up the trial, using her know how and wit, to paint a picture of her innocence. The babies know nothing, and Angelica knows more than nothing, and she adeptly pulls the blankets over their eyes. Until, Tommy uses reason. When Angelica is accused- does she back down? No- she admits to it, because they are babies. Her gloating is her downfall, because the adults eventual hear her, but Angelica gives us a small look into her mind during her confession. She was annoyed Phil and Lil didn't ask her to play their stupid baby game, she knew how easy it is to scare Chuckie, and when she saw the lamp- she had the urge to smash it. What a dark child. 'The Trial" had some great baby gags in mispronouncing words. Poop-etrator, The Jerky (The jury? NO- The Jerky!), and "you promise to tell the ruth, the whole ruth, and nothing but the ruth so help your Bob?"

The Rugrats is a special show in that it took (really now) a stupid idea and made it work. The animation in the first season was a little rough and sometimes inconsistent, but the 2nd season- bolder outlines and softer colors were established. The music is top notch, and sometimes outshines the entire show. The voice-over acting is deftly underrated as well. But starting with this 11th (out of 13) episode of the 1st season, the characters take center stage allowing the gags and story to proceed naturally. The end results were a well-rounded kids show with enough poignancy for adults. Sure the welcome was eventual out-stayed after season 4, and then the legacy tarnished by a movie where they go to Paris ad a movie where they meet another cartoon, but they had to build up to the point in order to jump that shark. So don't forget about Rugrats, before the other baby was born, and the animation changed to make Tommy's eyes too big.

Review: Watching People Eat: @Domino's

Firstly, I didn't even know we could eat at the Domino's. I knew they had a table, but I just assumed it was for people waiting for pick-up to sit at and wonder if they actually have a rest room to use. But now I see it. Why else would they have a table at a restaurant? Life makes so much sense now, for here we see a overweight woman wearing a stained/stretched 2002 Three Rivers Regatta Shirt complemented by black (sweat?) pants, with her daughter- a cannonball of a 6 year old- who has hair designed such as a crow would design a nest.

What are they dining on at this fine establishment at Domino's (who was gracious enough to slide a bounty of coupons under my door, so now I can pay 13 dollars and have enough food for 2 stoned meals)? Oh, looks like they are splitting a personal pan pizza. A personal pan pizza of 4 small slices. Between the, yes I'll say it, obviously wanting more mother and the ever growing child. Welcome to the saddest story ever.

Are they eating at this Domino's because this is their day out? God I hope not. Are they eating at the Domino's because they have no where else to go? That's an even worse option. There are no non-sad options of why this family of 2 would be eating at this Domino's. There is no wait staff. You pick up your food at the counter, where you also have to ask them for shake jars of pepper or cheese. There are 3 tables here.- two booth, and a two-seat table they are occupying. The only un-sad option is for them to try and evoke sympathy from Domino's patrons, such as myself, who have ordered way more than they need. But then that would be menacing of them, which is also sad that they are any degree of menace- because look where that got them in life!

"Momma, I'm still hungry," bemoans the daughter, licking the sauce and the stick cheese off the small container the personal pan pizza came in.

"Quiet and drink the Mountain Dew," the mother smacks back. The depressing duo have also split a small Mountain Dew, the saddest of all carbonated beverages.

The daughter sucks the straw only to hear the fatal slurps of dryness associated with empty cups.

I can't eat Domino' anymore. Not only because it is Domino's and why would I eat it in the first-place. But for the fact that it is Domino's, and shitty people fell for their shitty advertising and can only scrounge up enough money for their shitty smallest size of pizza. World, should I thank you from saving me from ever eating Domino's? Or should I actually feel human suffering, and make it so the world is a better place, albeit with better quality pizza, or equally as shitty pizza but costing less? Life, right?

Review: "Who Killed Who" (1943)

Cartooning is next to godliness. Cartoons are excuses to exaggerate real world appendages and conventions in order to make them a vision of an over-the-top director. As a fan of the medium, I feel obliged to shine a light on one of the true visionary director's- Tex Avery and one of his fine works- "Who Killed Who"

This was 1943. Let that really sink in. This was a time where movie violence was over acting. The realm of physics and believability in cartoons was pioneered by the likes of Tex Avery. Small jokes such as the victim reading the book "Who Killed Who (based on the cartoon of the same name)", and the inspector, rather than tip toeing over to be sneaking, extending one leg across the room on a tip toe and then the other leg reeling itself is a visual gag many have copied since then. Sure there were many of these jokes in existence before, but to the level of exaggeration and the rapid pace? It all makes sense in Avery's flow. The inspector asking for all the weapons on the table- lights off. Lights on- we see a giant stack of guns. Lights off- the complete room is now empty, with dust outlines from picture frames and all. Just that little extra bit. Just the pure genius of the line "At the sound of the gun- it will be midnight" and bang the victim is dead! The storyboard of these cartoon are so precise and so well timed that not a second goes by without a build up or gag. Sure this cartoon doesn't ring as loudly as it did in the 1940s (what could?), but there still is a bit of a thud in scenes of a man trying to look behind his back as to have both pupils in the corner of one eye or 17 dead bodies falling out a door (one of them pausing to break the action and call out the gag itself). Then you have Santa for no reason. The story stays true to itself as the entire last third of the film is chasing the masked killer. Grounded in realism- punctuated by absurdity.

So I'm imploring you- don't view this as something to make you laugh. Our generation's cartoon pool is deluded too much for this offer sincere guffaws. Rather look at these as timeless pieces of art, and a important piece to the puzzle of outward thinking. Breaking the 4th wall, rhetorical questions to the audience, the believability of inconsistency, and having a non sequita, non animated conclusion- all these things are thrown at you, and all are within question. This is a plea for reverence. Back in 1943, this was your Dr. Steve Brule, your Andy Kaufman, your Lenny Bruce. See where cartoons are at today and go out and find cartoons that are still true to the spirit of anarchy and urgency of change. This is a plea for respect- Tex Avery and cartoons such as Who Killed Who broke out of complacency, and charted their own territory of what can be possible. This is a plea for a return- do studios eve care what they put out anymore? I get that bottom line is money, but can they get that they can make the future happen? I'm off on a tangent here. Please watch the cartoon. Please watch any Droopy or Screwy Squirrel cartoon. Tex Avery also defined Bugs Bunny in "A Wild Hare". Done now? Done now.

Review: Trying

Trying is the simplest thing someone can do, which makes it pretty complicated when thinking about it. Trying is part doing, while doing has some inherit trying aspect to it. Should trying come naturally, but is that trying when it does? Trying is fun when it comes to new things, but trying something well worn and familiar- that's doing. You try when you do. If you're better than that than you do when you try. Trying too hard only sometimes impresses people. People beg to be impressed, but really on their own terms that you don't know about. So try. Trying is all anyone can do ever. That's pretty sad.

Trying is the most complicated thing someone can do, which makes it pretty simple when having to do something about it. Doing is mostly trying, while trying has some inherit doing to it. Doing should come naturally, and that is what doing tries to be- natural. doing new things isn't fun, but doing old things you are comfortable in is. Trying haphazardly really impresses no one. People beg to be impressed, but really you should worry about yourself. So try. Trying is all anyone can ever do. Don't take that for granted, trying can lead to salvation.

This blog has lived in that overlap between trying and doing for too long. RE: blog equals I. Time to do something about and time to try something about it. Ya know, for a 70 inch millipede, I'm not so bad.