...I've been watching a lot of Match Game recently. What is it with the Match Game that they always included the year with the show title?? "Match Game 73" or "Match Game 75" or whatever ... they are the only show I can think of that did that ...certainly the only game show that did that. It's almost like they had the show's posterity in mind...they wanted future game show afficianados to be able to say something like "Oh you hated that episode? Well no wonder! That was Match Game 74 which was a terrible Match Game vintage partly due to Gene Rayburn's brief bout with opium addiction and Charles Nelson Reilly's sabbatical to do an off-Broadway revival of "The Music Man"." I haven't been watching enough to be able to rank the years in order of quality or anything like that, but I am digging the show. Gene Rayburn has been added to my roster of "Best Gameshow Hosts Ever" Most gameshow hosts' wit consists of just being a smart ass straight man (which I totally appreciate) but Gene Rayburn is the rare gameshow host that will do physical comedy. But they all have their key assets, the hosts on this elite mental roster-- Chuck Woolery has a certain swanky charm and that trademark "2 & 2" move he does, Bob Eubanks has the word "whoopie", and Gene Rayburn has goofy physical comedy (and horsey teeth). Oh, and Guy Smiley has this adorable golden-hued foam rubberish & spongey complexion....
So my New Year's was decent. New Year's day brought me a MONSTER of a headache, but I suppose it coulda been worse. I went to my sister's for a party. During the course of the evening a small-ish food fight broke out. Now of course, the kids are very curious about these parties that require them to have off-site babysitting (not that there are that many of them...honest!) and yesterday were full of questions. Greg very dumbassedly let slip just that one detail. About the food fight. Of all the things to tell them! A massive food fight is like one of the top kid fantasies. Now the kids are experimenting with tossing vittles around at mealtimes. Laura will hafta have a talk with 'em, set them straight. I wonder if she'll go with "Do NOT throw food...it's fine for drunken adults to do, but not you!" or "Food fights are only OK on New Year's Eve".
It's amusing that my sister, who is her household's chief enforcer of tidiness, was the initiator and most active participant in this food fight. I say 'tis amusing, but it's in no way surprising. My sister is quite prone to a total persona 180 after a few oz. of alcohol...Laura Jeckyl & Mamma Hyde. Yowza. I do love her (the laws of Nature mandate that I do) but--OY-- she has the potential to be the world's most obnoxious drunk. Conversely, people usually can't tell when I'm drunk. I will suddenly realize it during a bathroom trip when I can't stop Cheshire cat grinning at my own reflection and the hand-eye coordination required to regloss my lips is taking considerably more concentration. But outside of the bathroom, I don't really outwardly convey drunkenness. Overall, I find this to be a good trait....except for those occasional occasions where I'd like to be taken advantage of and then it's rather a pain in the ass.
How sad is it that the #1 thing that I find exciting about January ...is that it means new episodes on the Office, Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty & Heroes?? Poor poor pitiful moi. What slightly redeems me is that I am not just a lowly couch potato....I am a couch potato with sporadic classical leanings. Because, in fact, the TV "event" I am the MOSTEST stoked about is Jan21
when once again they'll rehash Jane Eyre....this time for Masterpiece Theatre. So..set your DVRs Bronte fans!! Daaamn, is that a bizarre-ass sounding utterance! Not that I actually said it out loud...I'm not that excited about the thing. But I am stoked...even if my employ of the term "rehash" undercuts the sincerity of my stoked-ness. I mean, there's no denying the story has been done and redone and remade and REEEEEEMIXED!! ad infinitum (see here) but I am game for another 100 movie adaptations. Admittedly, I am a bit of an Eyre-aholic. I haven't seen like, the 1914 silent film version, or anything like that but I do have 3 DVDs of it ( the 1983 Timothy Dalton miniseries, the 1996 Zeferelli-directed version, and the 1997 A&E miniseries with Samantha Morton & Ciaran Hinds) High time to do another big screen version, I say. I mean, I guess 1996 (the yr of the last big screen version) is maybe too recent for Hollywood to be doing another one. But really, there are some pretty idiotic projects in the Hollywood "hopper" so why not a Jane Eyre remake, huh? I suppose it depends on industry trends...in which case, I wonder how 2005's "Pride & Prejudice" did, $$$-wise?? I know I really dug it, but I wonder what the box office figures looked like. If it was a financial flop, then my dream Jane Eyre movie ("Clive Owen ---IS--Edward Rochester!" I can just hear the cheesy Coming Attractions voice over now) will be a loooong time a-comin'.
Now when I just now commented that "there are some pretty idiotic projects in the Hollywood hopper" I was thinking specifically of the movie "Hairspray" set to open up July of this year. I remember being aaaaaall excited back in '03 when it was being said that "Chicago" revived the movie musical. And now they do THIS to the genre--when it is still wobbly on new colt's legs, trying to tenatively re-ingratiate itself with the public--now, now.. UGH. It makes me ill. "Hairspray" was originally a movie...and then apparently the movie was so terrif they had to make it into a Broadway show. Sure..sort of a switcheroo from the usual progression, but OK, fine. Now they're again doing the movie? Same convoluted mess they made with The Producers . Which, y'know, the Producers mighta come out fine, I can't say (not having seen the show or the movie) but it just gives the impression that people are running out of ideas, getting lazy. But that is just a minor quibble....my big gripe here is casting. They have that ubiquitous junior stud from the mega-ubiquitous HIGH SCHOOL MUSICAL playing Link Larkin. Link Larkin--if I comprehend the role fully (and uhhh, "Hairspray" is not Dostoyevsky, I think I get it) is supposed to be the ULTIMATE "dreamboat". Zac Efron (yes, I know the name...Sandra admitted ashamedly)-- NOT DREAMY ENOUGH. I know, I know, there about a trillion Tiger Beat subscribers that would lynch me on charges of blasphemy if they read that, but I STAND BY MY ASSESSMENT. Bring it on, bitches.
Even worse casting is John Travolta as the mother. He is nowhere near campy enough for the role of Edna. The fact that he owes his present-day career to Quentin Tarantino--that gives him a slight kitsch factor, but we're talking a character birthed from the noggin of JOHN WATERS. Now Waters goes beyond kitsch--deep into white-trash camp territory, the Jerry Springerish Nth ring of hell. What they shoulda done (sez me) is-- instead of trying to propel a newcomer to fame (voila!! A star is born!) by giving the lead role to a no-name,they should've tried to add some surreal star power to the role of Tracy (J-Lo in a fat suit? I dunno..) and recruited an amateur to play Edna. And they should've scouted for talent in the most lurid dens of iniquity on Earth, culled from the most subterranean depths of the sub-culture, y'know? OR they should've cast Charles Nelson Reilly. He could play the HELL outta Edna Turnblatt, I tell ya. And hey-- combine the Disney Channel demographic with the Game Show Network demographic and the flick is GUARANTEED to kick box office fanny!!
No comments:
Post a Comment