What Poppa Tomato said to Baby Tomato

I'm not even sure if I enjoy this blogging business anymore. What's the point? All this crap you can find out on your own. You don't need me to tell you that a dvd for a Japanese tv show starring manequins as Americans called The Fuccons is arriving on the 20th.










Do you even need to know about the Grabowski Shuffle? Will it make you happy? Click here to find out. Thanks, Scott.

You probably already know Eugene Mirman has his own blog thing going on at the Village Voice website where he sometimes makes funny comments and posts his always funny phone conversations. (He also pointed out Steven Seagal's offical website for it's unabashed awesomeness. Free mp3s!)

Is it my job to tell you about the Law & Order Coloring Book?

I don't know -- when is New Yorkish coming back? Ever? That was a good blog. It didn't pretend to be anything more than what it was -- a collection of funny links, nicely organized and displayed. I recently went clicking through five or six connected blogs that all had the same damn links to the same damn stories -- it seemed to me like these people felt the need, the imperative, to update their blogs just for the sake of updating. Do we need 1 million bored people's opinion of the daily celebrity news?

Ah, fuck it. I'm just being pissy. Maybe I'm just realizing I have nothing to really offer this blogiverse. Three sentence netflix reviews and the same old music recomendations you can find at any annoying hipster music site out there. Hell, I don't even have time to update the sidebar but once every few months. Maybe I'll finish remodeling in here and feel better about it all. Maybe.

Here's something you won't find everywhere -- my grumpy old man email to the guy that runs Roger Ebert's website:

Hi -- First off, I'd like to say that I enjoy the blog and the discussions that have been going on within but felt the need to respond to what I found to be a bit of a continuity error.

I enjoyed the post "Misreading Spielberg (& Hollywood)" dated Nov 28 where you pointed out the numerous errors in a NY Times article about Spielberg and his relationship with the Hollywood studios. I went on to read the previous post "Can movies live up to TV?" and my jaw promptly struck my keyboard.

You mention about halfway through that "Alessandra Stanley, the TV critic for the New York Times and one of the few television reviewers I really enjoy reading..." Wuzza wuzza? Not one week later you'd be devoting a well meaning post on the flaws of The New York Times fact-checkers, or lack thereof, and ill-informed writers and here you are recommending possibly the least correct writer on their staff.

And there's been a lot of research done to back up the fact that she is the one of the more error prone reporters. The website Gawker even has an Alessandra Stanley Watch that pops up rather frequently to inform us of the most recent ones.

This might have been what lead John Cook, a former TV writer for The Chicago Tribune to go ahead and collect her mistakes on his blog. That's a lot of mistakes -- 23 mistakes in 2004 alone. Sure some of those mistakes could be blamed on typos or getting nit-picky -- but her actual reviews offer very little in the way of making it seem she knows what she's writing about. Take this example:

""American Dad" has amusing moments and engaging characters, but it is to "The Simpsons" what Japanese anime is to Disney's "Fantasia": fashionable, but crude and cheaply drawn in comparison."

I think anyone reading this blog knows that Japanese anime has offered some of the best animation ever put on film. One could assume she's talking about the children's cartoons like Sailor Moon or perhaps Speed Racer, but part of being a writer is making your point clear, no?

Or this statement in her review of the show "Over There":

"During World War II, many war movies were made long before its outcome was known: "Mrs. Miniver," "Casablanca" and "In Which We Serve" were released in 1942. Back then, wartime films focused on survivors and civilians struggling on the home front ; neither Hollywood nor the War Department wanted to demoralize audiences with too graphic a depiction of what their servicemen were likely to endure. "

If you look at the films involving the war made in 1942 -- it's clear that the majority of films did not focus on the home front. She seems to be skewing the facts to fit her review. Not something a good reporter/reviewer should do.

The last example (I could go on to find many others) is what bothers me the most about her reviews, this is in regards to the TV show Supernatural:

"The first half-hour of the pilot is quite effective: the camera angles, spooky music and jumpy sequences (whenever a character appears, it is sudden and startling) are as frightening as those found in any horror movie, with an added twist of suspense."

Effective spooky television is having every character appear in a sudden and startling manner? With dutch angles and spooky music, of course. And she never mentions what this added twist of suspense is... She reviews two shows in this column (Bones and Supernatural) and yet manages to properly review neither, I really couldn't tell if she was recommending either show or not. Instead she offers up vague descriptions and numerous comparisons to well known shows and movies.

Argh, I'm sorry, this was a rant that's been building up and your seemingly contradictory posts forced it out of me. I apologize for going on and on but someone had to do it.

Many thanks,
Sean

Brilliant! What can you say to that?

Dear Sean --

Yikes! I admit I like Stanley's writing style, but I guess I don't have the TV background to recognize her factual errors. (Well, I also tend to read her stuff in the morning before I've had my coffee, so unless I go back and look at it again later I must confess I'm a bit fuzzy.)

Thanks for pointing that out. I'll try to keep a more critical eye on her stuff...

Thanks gain for writing,

Jim Emerson
Editor, RogerEbert.com

Hmm... Not very satisfying, but I'll take it as an admission of something or other in the way of guilt.

Yes, let's leave on a lame sort of high note here.