Go to FLOTSAM & JETSAM
- Add a comment
- Go to STRANGE BEDFELLOWS; The Smithsonian Institution and Showtime Network
Let me see...I remembered the lithium and Ive got my tinfoil hat...
I'm not gruff, I'm maturely but uneducatedly offensive. Curmudgeonly if you will.
Never mistake "flight of ideas" and "loosely associated thinking" with artistry or you'll finfd yourself bankrolling unproductive madmen.
(Sidebar: Listen to Joni Mitchell's "Violent Indigo").
posted by
majroj
on April 8, 2006 at 8:11 PM
| link to this | reply
Maj, there's definitely an artist hiding
behind that gruff exterior of yours. That flight of fancy taking you spinning off, but not that far at all from the reality.
posted by
Cynthia
on April 8, 2006 at 2:00 PM
| link to this | reply
You are kind in your choice of words. I hear you.
In the large sense SHOWTIME might make it more acccessible but it will sacrifice truth for popularity any day. And by starving documentary makers it will uhrt that sort of work in the long run; where will you go for the grownup versions after you've watched SHOWTIME's version?
They don't give a hoot one way or the other about art, they give a hoot about money and power, so contracts and agreements are sand in the wind in the face of their ambition.
I suppose next it'll be the WB buying all the old classics and colorizing them..no, Ted Turner already did that. Well, then, they'l buy North Songs from Paul McCartney...geez, already been done.
OK. I know... Cristo's going to buy the Statue of Liberty and redec every other month. He'll need corporate sponsors. The first will be:
Frederick's of Hollywood!
posted by
majroj
on April 7, 2006 at 8:13 AM
| link to this | reply
Tely, I think it goes hand in hand with the disdain for
intellect that seems to permeate this particular administration more than any other in my memory.
posted by
Cynthia
on April 5, 2006 at 4:55 AM
| link to this | reply
I find the continual erosion of the arts and intellectuallism in this country a very distressing trend. The fact that the government seems to care little and do less to improve quality of life for its citizens to be a disgrace.
posted by
telynor
on April 4, 2006 at 9:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Maj, forgot to thank you for the link to the Times article.
posted by
Cynthia
on April 4, 2006 at 4:22 AM
| link to this | reply
fw, that's the other shoe that hasn't dropped yet.
I'm waiting to hear.
posted by
Cynthia
on April 4, 2006 at 4:21 AM
| link to this | reply
Maj, good points. That is the upside, but those
long term effects are hard to calculate and they are subjective, but your anecdotal evidence does seem to support a more positive spin on this situation.
posted by
Cynthia
on April 4, 2006 at 4:20 AM
| link to this | reply
Thanks for the info ....
somebody's making some money on this deal somewhere. That's how this Republican administration works.
posted by
fwmystic
on April 2, 2006 at 10:22 PM
| link to this | reply
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/washington/31smithsonian.html
posted by
majroj
on April 2, 2006 at 8:02 AM
| link to this | reply
I would be raising my hand at this point...oh, look, I am!
As a long-time subscriber to the "Smithsonian" magazine (about 25-plus years) and two-time visitor to the edifice, and a lifelong fan of museums in general, and a taxpayer to boot, I have a strong aversion to the potential for scholarly pursuits to be elbowed aside to let commercial productions make another version of WWII a'la "The History Channel".
I would wonder if popularized versions which Showtime might produce could act as entry level "teasers" which might interest some people in their subjects, whereas more scholarly films might lose them. (Many more people in my generation became interested in dinosaurs/paleontology/geology through "The Shy Stegasaurus of Cricket Creek" and "Million Dollar Movie" TV reruns of cheesy fantasy movies than through Nicholas Von Hotten's more scholarly but far more scientifically correct books.
Can both somehow be accomodated? Will they honor their contractual ties, or trammel them as we see many so treated nowadays?
posted by
majroj
on April 2, 2006 at 7:54 AM
| link to this | reply