Weird Al-evator.

Yesterday, after reading the Washington Post article about Weird Al, I watched his video "Tacky," which — the article explains — was made in a single unedited shot that includes a ride down an elevator:



Here's the Pharrell Williams video it parodies, which is charmingly entertaining but not as inventive photographically. You can watch the 2 videos playing side by side here. There's also a video at the WaPo link with background on the making of "Tacky," where we learn that the room we see in that freeze frame is also in "The Big Lebowski."

Last night, I dreamed I needed to get around in a strange hotel with an unusual, confusing elevator. I said "The hotel had a weird elevator... a weird al-evator."

Can Bernie help Hillary?

Look at the body language in this photograph (at the NYT). The chairs are set on the stage with room between them, so that the candidates could sit squarely on the seats and be close enough without touching, but both candidates sit off center. Bernie is quite far over to the side, and he's also crossing his leg away from her and high up on the knee to create a barrier which is fortified by his arm stretched all the way out across the leg. His other hand is in his pocket. Hillary, for her part, is turned away from Bernie, and she has her ankles crossed and her hands clasped in her lap.

The accompanying article, published today, is titled "Presidential Election: Any Surprises Left?" The political preference of the NYT is hilariously highlighted by the 2 headings: "Will the stars align for Mrs. Clinton?" and "Will the K.K.K. return to front and center?" As to the "stars"* aligning, the "surprise" for Hillary is that Pharrell Williams, Jay Z, and Katy Perry are performing at rallies, "working hard to drum up interest among millennial voters." And the political stars, Obama, Biden, and Bernie are doing events.

Judging from the photograph, Bernie is withholding his full and open support. Perhaps he knows that the passion and heightened consciousness that he inspired cannot simply be handed to Hillary Clinton. Or perhaps Bernie had recently read that newly leaked email:

In February, longtime Clinton adviser and Democratic insider Joel Johnson had sent an email to Clinton campaign head John Podesta, emphasizing, “Bernie needs to be ground to a pulp. We can’t start believing our own primary bullshit. This is no time to run the general. Crush him as hard as you can.”

Just after Salon reported Johnson’s message on Thursday morning, however, the whistleblowing organization WikiLeaks released another trove of emails to and from Podesta. In this new batch of messages appeared Podesta’s response to Johnson’s advice.

“I agree with that in principle,” Podesta wrote in reply to Johnson’s “no mercy” email.

“Where would you stick the knife in?” Podesta asked....

Johnson proposed portraying Sanders as an “Obama betrayer,” noting that the White House would help affirm the talking point. He also said Sanders should be depicted as a “hapless legislator,” which other members of Congress would help affirm; a “false promiser,” which “policy elites” would affirm; and as someone who is unable to win, which “black people will affirm.”

_______________________

* Did you know that when you're a star, they let you do anything?

"Robin Thicke, Pharrell Williams owe Marvin Gaye’s family $7.4 million for ‘Blurred Lines,’ jury decides."

"The trial was notable primarily because it’s unusual that these battles to go to public.... But this case was messy from the beginning. In August 2013, Thicke, Williams and T.I. filed a preemptive suit claiming no infringement."

Then, after Gaye’s family sued them, Thicke made headlines last year when his deposition leaked with his shocking, embarrassing defense: The singer claimed he was “high on Vicodin and alcohol” during the writing process.

As for all those interviews where he boasted about helping write it and how he was specifically inspired by Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up”? Well, he was lying, Thicke said, and just envious that Williams, also the producer of the song, would get all the glory.

"Remember that copyright litigation between Marvin Gaye and the folks behind Blurred Lines?"

"Well, Pharrell and Robin Thicke's depositions have now been made public, and let's just say that they perhaps didn't go so well...."

"It is beyond sad that these kids were arrested for trying to spread happiness."

Said Pharrell Williams, whose song "Happy" was appropriated for the purpose of dancing in a YouTube video made in Iran.

Many Twitter users had used the hashtag #freehappyiranians to put pressure on the Iranian authorities to release the dancers.

Yeah, I know, hashtags. But the kids have been freed — on bail, at least. 

Here's the video at YouTube, where there are many comments, including the funny but inappropriate:

Khamenei was probably sick of hearing this annoying song on the radio so many times and ordered them arrested for making him listen to it again. I don't blame him. The long, hipster beard and skinny jeans doesn't help their case either. I wish being a hipster was illegal all over the world.

Free speech. Know it. Live it. Use it.

ADDED: This post caused me to make a Pharrell Williams tag. I resist making tags on individual names, and I'd like to weed out all the old tags on names that ended up only being used once, but I knew I'd blogged at least once before about Pharrell Williams (when he wore shorts to the Oscars), but I see there was one other post about a year ago: "Is Will.i.am suing Pharrell Williams for using 'I am OTHER' and horning in on his 'I am'?" That made me wonder what had happened to the lawsuit, and I wanted to drop an update that had escaped my notice: They settled.

Man in shorts at the Oscars.

Scroll way down... or search on the page for Pharrell Williams.

Is Will.i.am suing Pharrell Williams for using "I am OTHER" and horning in on his "I am"?

I am so you can't be. Will.i.am's lawyer provided this legalistic argle-bargle:

"Will.i.am is not suing Pharrell Williams... What Will.i.am has done is what any trademark owner must do to protect and maintain a trademark. This is a run-of-the-mill trademark dispute that has been going on since late last year. In order to avoid weakening or losing his trademark, Will.i.am has an obligation under trademark law to monitor and defend his trademarks against confusingly similar marks. Will.i.am has registered several trademarks, including 'I AM', which is also emphasised in, and a significant element of, his professional name. We think their proposed trademark is too close to our registered and common law trademarks. They disagree. We hope to work out a sensible compromise that will allow both parties to move forward without unnecessary acrimony."

So don't call this suing AND don't call yourself "I am," especially in the music business and where you seem to be exploiting the "William" name and the simple cleverness of seeing the "I am" in William, and anyway, your name is Williams, with an "s," so that's some awkward appropriated cleverness. Like I ams. So go infringe on that dogfood, why don't you? Or... I mean... cease this unnecessary acrimony.

By the way, I thought God owned the trademark on "I am":

I Am that I Am (אֶהְיֶה אֲשֶׁר אֶהְיֶה, ʾehyeh ʾašer ʾehyeh...) is a common English translation...  of the response God used in the Hebrew Bible when Moses asked for his name (Exodus 3:14)....

Ehyeh-Asher-Ehyeh (often contracted in English as "I AM") is one of the Seven Names of God accorded special care by medieval Jewish tradition. The phrase is also found in other world religious literature, used to describe the Supreme Being, generally referring back to its use in Exodus.

If God is I Am that I Am, then Will.i.am must already be an OTHER I am. Suggested legalistic argle-bargle: one more reason for Pharrell Williams to step back.

UPDATE: The 2 men settle the lawsuit in March 2014.