"It’s crazy to spend $100-plus on a babysitter just to go to the movies."

Said a woman, quoted nonanonymously, who brought her 7-week-old daughter to a screening of the hit movie "The Odyssey."

I'm reading "Baby’s First R-Rated Blockbuster/'The Odyssey' is selling out in all formats at all times of day. Even at morning screenings, which are packed with newborns and parents desperate to feel 'normal'" (NYT gift link).

But this isn't a woman who's oblivious to the interests of babyless moviegoers. She goes to a "baby-friendly matinee." The tickets clearly say the show is for "Adults With Infants." Fine, then. I just hope the babies have ear protection. It does say they turn the sound down "a tad." A tad's not enough.

And, of course, it doesn't matter that the movie is R-rated. The baby understands nothing of what makes it R-rated. Though it is possible that the turmoil and anxiety come across in some way we adults cannot understand.

"The writing is abysmal. None of the characters has convincing motivation for their actions or words. There are no sex scenes, and all the food looks horrible."

Writes Emily Wilson, quoted in "'I would be ashamed to have written any part of this’: Odyssey translator Emily Wilson attacks Nolan blockbuster/Wilson, whose work on Homer’s epic was praised by Nolan, said his film was grandiose and superficial with ‘nothing convincing to say'" (The Guardian).

People always say the movie lacks the depth and character development of the book, but complaining about food is funny.

As for the lack of sex... Maureen Dowd wrote about that in "Nolan’s Zero-Eros 'Odyssey'" (NYT gift link): "In keeping with Gen Z’s waning interest in sex, the poem’s famous sex scenes have been excised, sapping erotic power from the female characters.... Nolan did not want his Odysseus betraying Penelope and enjoying his sojourns with other women. The director completely cut out the young princess Nausicaa, whom Homer’s Odysseus has a flirtation with, and neuters the text’s sexual encounters with Circe and Calypso...."

ADDED: Here's the whole Wilson essay: "An Uncomplicated Man" (London Review of Books).

"Many of the writers, directors, producers or actors I’ve worked with wouldn’t even recognize or know how to make this stuff."

"Apparently, people will watch anything BUT the expensively produced content I write — unless it is in the form of unlicensed 15- to 30-second clips."

Writes Karl Taro Greenfeld, "a scriptwriter for television and a novelist," in "Short Videos Are Killing Hollywood. A Merger Won’t Save It" (NYT).

Why would a composer of symphonies know how to write a 2-minute pop song? People love the visual equivalent of a pop song and, as with pop songs, they'll listen to a lot of them in a row. It's not as though they don't want to spend the time with the material they like. They just like snazzy little works of art that begin and end quickly.

But Greenfeld takes the position that the "attention span is shattered," even if people are spending hours looking at short video.

"Where are the gods in all of this? They appear in the film the way they would appear to humans: through thunder and lightning, through the elation of triumph..."

"... and the experience of pain and longing. Among the major gods, only Athena is personified (by an ethereal Zendaya), but she is not the warrior goddess of the poem. She is more like a projection of Odysseus’s own conscience, materializing the way an angel might land on one’s shoulder. She represents his desire for goodness, home, and order. (In the scenes of Troy’s sacking, we return to a repeated image of Athena’s statue being beheaded, the ultimate violation.) This is all very far from the dominant film depiction of Greek mythology that I remember from my own childhood, 1981’s Clash of the Titans, in which the gods hang out together in togas on Mount Olympus, with Laurence Olivier as Zeus dictating much of the action."

Writes Gal Beckerman, in "The Odyssey Was Never About the Gods/Christopher Nolan’s largely deity-free blockbuster adaptation only highlights the humanity of the original" (The Atlantic)(gift link).

"I do love revenge, I will say that,' adds Meeropol, 57, taking a sip from an iced Americano... 'I’d always loved revenge movies."

That's from "The woman behind E Jean Carroll: I do love revenge, I will say that/Ivy Meeropol has made a film starring one of Trump’s biggest foes. And she has her own beef with the president — dating back to her grandparents’ execution" (London Times).

Meeropol = Ivy Meeropol, the documentarian who made a movie about the man, Roy Cohn, who "helped to send her grandparents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, to the electric chair, leaving her father orphaned at the age of ten." Now, Meeropol has a movie about E. Jean Carroll.

A few days ago, Carroll finally received the $5.6 million she won in her lawsuit against Trump, and Meeropol said: "This historic moment shows that our legal system — established almost 250 years ago to serve as a check against absolute power — still works. E Jean used to sign off from her television show in the mid-Nineties saying, 'Fate loves the fearless,' and it couldn’t be more appropriate today...."

Much has been made of the fact that Carroll is not a perfect MeToo victim.

Am I the only one who remembers this movie?

Wikipedia: "Athanael (Jack Benny), the third trumpet player in the orchestra of a late night radio show sponsored by Paradise Coffee... falls asleep listening to the announcer, who is doing his best to prove it is 'the coffee that makes you sleep.' Athanael dreams he is an angel (junior grade) and a trumpeter in the orchestra of Heaven.... [H]e is given the mission of destroying planet 339001 (Earth) and its troublesome inhabitants by blowing the 'Last Trumpet' at exactly midnight, signaling the end of the world...."

It was released on April 20, 1945 — 8 days after the death of President Roosevelt — and was a box office failure. I watched it in 1964 when it played on "The Early Show" on TV, which means it played every night for a week, Monday through Friday. That gave you and your brother the chance to turn it into a family cult classic complete with commentary and shouted-out memorized lines. 

I love the poster, but that's not a trumpet.

"After an uncredited part as a masseuse in the Peter Sellers comedy 'What’s New Pussycat?' (1965), written by Mr. Allen, and a voice-over in 'What’s Up, Tiger Lily?' (1966), Mr. Allen’s directorial debut..."

"... Ms. Lasser had full-fledged roles — with character names and screen time — in Mr. Allen’s next three auteur efforts, which he wrote, directed and starred in. In 'Take the Money and Run' (1969), she was a bank robber’s neighbor, impressed by his fame. In 'Bananas' (1971), she was the hero’s activist girlfriend who drops him because he shows no political leadership skills. The next year, in 'Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex (But Were Afraid to Ask),' she played a woman who could achieve orgasm only in public. In the middle of all that filmmaking, in 1970, the Allens divorced...."

From "Louise Lasser, Star of TV’s ‘Mary Hartman,’ Is Dead at 87/She began her screen career in Woody Allen movies (he was also her husband), but she was best known for her portrayal of the Ohio housewife in the pigtails and puffed sleeves" (NYT).

An overabundance of furniture.

On Wednesday, I saw the APT production of "The Chairs," which involved dragging an ever-increasing number of chairs into a surrealistic environment...

Then, on Friday, I went to the movies for the first time in over a year, to see "The Backrooms," and it too involved a piling up of furniture in a surrealistic environment....

It's a bit much. A bit meta. Seemingly separate surrealisms are converging. In one week, I'm seeing 2 things playing out so similarly, and I can't think of any other play/movie where the furniture was so important. I didn't set out to experience plentitudinous furniture.

Watching both the the play and the movie and thinking about them afterwards, I thought a lot about whether we were supposed to think of the place as a fantastical external environment that contained the characters or whether it was a depiction of the deteriorating state of a character's mind. 

"According to [David] Thomson, movies — especially American movies — have whitewashed history, glorified violence and made role models out of thugs, narcissists and murderers."

"The consequences shape our public life. Donald Trump 'is our movie man,' Thomson writes, meaning that Trump’s presidency, which Thomson sees as a catastrophe, was foretold and to some extent made possible by Hollywood. Not just bad movies.... Turning our humanity upside down and our values inside out is what good movies do.... 'We are no longer the selves we hoped to be,' Thomson concludes. 'We are not exactly alive any longer.' It’s the movies that condemned us to this limbo."

Writes A.O. Scott, in "Did Movies Ruin Everything? How the film writer David Thomson found himself in a lover’s quarrel with cinema — and America" (NYT).

"What if he’s right?...

"['The Ring,'] a remake of a Japanese film, 'Ringu,' received mixed reviews, but the image of Samara crawling through a blurry television screen became seared in the cultural memory..."

"... and Ms. Chase won the award for best villain at the 2003 MTV Movie Awards. That year she returned to Lilo in the sequel 'Stitch! The Movie' and in the 'Lilo & Stitch' TV series, which ran from 2003 to 2006. She then transitioned to her biggest TV role yet. In HBO’s 'Big Love' — which chronicled the trials and tribulations of Mormon polygamists — she starred as Rhonda Volmer, a cunning 14-year-old bride in waiting, in 32 episodes between 2006 to 2011...."

From "Daveigh Chase, ‘Lilo & Stitch’ Voice Actor and ‘The Ring’ Villain, Dies at 35" (NYT). Chase died of "complications of bacterial meningitis and a blood infection" while she was "homeless and living in Los Angeles with her boyfriend."

UPDATE, June 30, 2026: Now, the report is that Daveigh Chase died of AIDS.

Goodbye to Gene Shalit.

I never watched the "Today" show — or any of the other morning news shows — but I knew he was over there, carrying on, sporting a giant mustache, summing up movies with terse wisecracks.

He made it to 100.

"The teams totaled 34 hits, and 14 pitchers combined to throw 444 pitches. It was the fourth game in major league history with at least 29 runs and 11 homers."

I'm reading "Brewers outlast A's 15-14 in 12 innings as teams combine for 11 homers and 34 hits in Las Vegas/Andrew Vaughn had four hits and four RBIs, including a two-run double that tied the score in the ninth inning, and the Milwaukee Brewers outlasted the Athletics 15-14 in 12 innings at Las Vegas Ballpark in a wild game that featured 11 homers" (WaPo).

No, I wasn't watching. That game started at my bedtime — 9 p.m.

I just noticed that there's a team now that's just named the Athletics — no city/state in the name. Just the mascot... and it's the most generic mascot. The Athletics. And they played in Las Vegas last night — "at the site of their Triple-A affiliate, the Las Vegas Aviators." They seem homeless. They're not in Oakland anymore, and their normal home these days is West Sacramento, but not enough of a home to become part of its name. Playing a few games in Las Vegas this week has something to do with Las Vegas being its future home. A new stadium will open in 2028.

But maybe you watched basketball last night. I'd rather watch a random baseball game than an important basketball game, but I did pause the movie I was watching and go downstairs to hear the National Anthem and catch a glimpse of Trump. The NYT says "Mr. Trump smiled and saluted in the face of deafening boos when he briefly appeared on the arena’s video board...." I went back to my movie — "A Complete Unknown," now, finally, on HBO — but I did look up the result this morning. I see Trump ruined everything:

Ooh, that Trump. The Knicks lost. Meanwhile, Bob Dylan won. That's what Joan Baez says to him at the end of the biopic: "You won." He's all "What did I win?" and then he rides off into the sunset on his motorcycle. 

"I have to say, I’m pretty much on my own with this question, and I’m at a loss."

Said the director Wim Wenders, 80, asked about his movie "Wrong Move" (1975) which made the now easily perceptibly wrong move of gazing at the breasts of a 13 year old. But what to do about that now?

I'm reading, "Wim Wenders Pulls Film With Teenage Nudity After Actress’s Pleas/Nastassja Kinski was 13 years old when she was shown topless in the 1975 film 'Wrong Move.' 'I could already tell that wasn’t right,' she told a German newspaper" (NYT).

"On Wednesday, Wenders released a statement on his foundation’s website," the NYT says, linking to a German text. I used Grok to put it in English:

Squelching.

I'm reading a letter to the NYT "Ethicist" in "I Think Someone Is Living in the Storage Unit Next to Mine. What Should I Do? I was so uncomfortable I just threw my things inside and left":

"... there was a man in the unit directly across from mine — bags in the hallway, sitting on a five-gallon bucket, barefoot, writing on a notepad and eating cup noodles. As I approached, he pulled down a makeshift curtain of old plastic sheeting hung on a rope where the door would close. I was too surprised to get a good look inside, but I did see a large jar of yellow liquid and a semi-used roll of toilet paper, along with floor-to-ceiling bags and boxes that looked as if they had been there for many years. Behind the plastic it sounded as if he just continued to write. I had planned on organizing my unit that day but was so uncomfortable I just threw my things inside and left. On almost every subsequent visit of mine, he has been in there. He always pulls the plastic down, but it doesn’t cover the whole doorway, and it’s deeply uncomfortable shuffling around my own things (or using the hallway) while someone sits there five feet away. We don’t interact; sometimes I think I hear a pen scratch, but once I heard rhythmic squelching and got really grossed out jumping to an obvious conclusion...."

Observing the structure of my own thoughts — you can tell me yours — I saw:

A thoroughly idiotic question at CNN's California gubernatorial debate: Who would you want to play you in a movie about you?

This is just so terribly bad. It's also an unfair softball because it's so easy for the 2 Hispanic males. They both say Antonio Banderas. Watch the nonsense:

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by CNN (@cnn)

If you're going to have a movie question for a potential governor of California, it ought to be something substantive about the movie business, but "California Gubernatorial Candidates Bicker and Squabble, But Say Little About Hollywood/The demise of a flagship industry drew little attention in Tuesday’s CNN debate" (Hollywood Reporter).

"One fashionista visibly shuddered when asked her opinion. 'It was terrible. Just awful,' she said."

"'I mean, who was the stylist for that movie?' she gasped, hand to heart. (For the record, it was Molly Rogers, who took over from her mentor, the legendary Patricia Field, mid-way through filming as Fields’s 'dance card was full' with other projects such as Emily in Paris). Perhaps the worst criticism was aimed at the outfits Streep agreed to tolerate for her role. 'They put her in a coat with couch pillow tassels on it! It was criminally ugly,' said one aghast attendee. 'I’ll never get over it.' Or, as Peter Davis, the editor-in-chief of Avenue magazine, said, laughing: 'They should rename it The Devil Wears Bad Clothes.' He went on: 'The fashion was awful but not so bad it was good, like Ab Fab, which the filmmakers should have rewatched for inspiration before rebooting this cheesy, tacky, and worst of all, boring movie.'"

From "Why billionaire fashionistas hate The Devil Wears Prada 2/At an exclusive soiree on Billionaires’ Row celebrating a private screening of the sequel, guests bemoan sequins, sofa-esque tassels and a ‘lousy script'" (London Times).

"[I]n 1972, Keith Stroup, founder of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, discovered ['Reefer Madness'] in the Library of Congress archives."

"He screened it at a New York benefit, catching the eye of Robert Shaye, founder of the new production company New Line Cinema. Shaye knew it had potential as an accidental satire so he rereleased it, holding midnight showings marketed to college students across California campuses in particular. The rest is campy cult classic history, one that includes a 1998 stage musical, which has been revived in productions big and small around the country since, and a 2005 TV movie musical starring Kristen Bell, Alan Cumming and Neve Campbell. 'Reefer Madness' may be the first film to be embraced by a generation because it’s so bad — or so bad, it’s good."

That's from a new NYT article, "'Reefer Madness,' the P.S.A. That Backfired Spectacularly/The comically self-serious and outrageous 1936 morality tale, which warned the public about marijuana, became an unintentional parody and midnight-movie classic decades later."

First, I was sorry to see the article omitted the name of the author of the story:

 

Image taken from Wikipedia.

That's amused me for a long time.

But, second, I don't believe "Reefer Madness" was the first thing that "a generation" embraced because "it’s so bad — or so bad, it’s good." Personally, I remember going to see "The Green Slime" in 1969 for this reason. I remember hearing that it was what "all the heads" in New York were seeing. 

But I see the distinction: "The Green Slime" was trying to be so bad it's good. "Reefer Madness" was trying to warm young people away from marijuana.

Or was it?

AND: Even as we speak: "Trump administration moves to ease federal restrictions on marijuana/Marijuana had the same classification as heroin, LSD and others before being reclassified for lower potential for abuse" (Guardian).

ALSO: I took my "Or was it?" question to Grok, which assured me it was sincerely intended as propaganda. That made me think. I wrote this sentence to sum up my thoughts: "Propaganda is inherently funny but circumstances might cloud one's ability to appreciate the fun."

"Coyote vs. Acme — a film Warner Bros. famously tried to scrap in 2023 — has released its first footage ahead of coming to theaters this summer."

Hollywood Reporter observes.

Warner Bros. had planned to scrap the completed movie as part of a $115 million write-down. Social media uproar helped to save the project, which Ketchup Entertainment acquired for distribution. The shelving attempt was one of the first headline-making decisions under CEO David Zaslav (along with another high-profile and completed project, Batgirl).... Zaslav previously told The New York Times about the decision, “The question is, should we take certain of these movies and open them in the theater and spend another $30 or $40 million to promote them? And [the] Warner Bros. team and HBO made a number of decisions. They were hard. But when I look at the health of our company today, we needed to make those decisions. And it took real courage."

I've seen the trailer, and I think they made the right decision to scrap this thing after making the wrong decision to manufacture it in the first place — to insert the Warner Brother cartoons into the real world, especially a real world full of lawyers... it's awful... but then that's the opinion of someone who has an aversion to movies based on pre-existing intellectual property and to movies about lawyering. So check for yourself:

ADDED: Let's remember that Chuck Jones had rules for the use of Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote, and this movie egregiously breaks rule #6: "All action must be confined to the natural environment of the two characters—the southwest American desert." 

"Writing is an invasion of your own privacy and the privacy of others, but the writer is always deciding where and how far to invade."

I wrote in a July 2021 post called "Rewatching 5 movies I saw in the theater when they first came out and I was in my early 20s."

I'm reading that this morning because in last night's Sunrise Café, people got to talking about Kurosawa movies and I was motivated to search my own archive for Kurosawa. Kurosawa is only mentioned in passing in that 2021 post, on a list of movies I was excited to consume all at once when I was in college — "All the Bergman films, the silents, the noir, the Fellini, the Marx Brothers, the Kurosawa, the Cary Grant movies, Katharine Hepburn, the entire French New Wave — half a century of great stuff to catch up on."

But the last line of that old post — the line that is this post's title — resonated with a post from 3 days ago, where I quoted an author who wrote "I decide which parts of me you see; I curate the way you understand my pain with sharp precision." And: "This is my book, and you’re reading it. Presumably, you like me. At the very least, you’re stuck in my head, and I control the aperture."

Are you having a psychotic break?

How is a person supposed to tell if they are having a psychotic break or not these days?

Everyone else can see the big rabbit listening to Trump talk about bombing Iran, right? pic.twitter.com/aH9C2RohFE

— Peter Hague (@peterrhague) April 6, 2026

AND: May I recommend a movie double feature, both involving visitation by large rabbits: "Harvey" and "Donnie Darko"?