It ain't over til the fat whale sings!

Moby Dick the OPERA

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/ipad/a-performance-worth-krilling-for/story-fn6br97j-1226123217594?from=public_rss

Article focuses on the actor/singer playing Queequeg, the "moral compass of the piece."

Fine and dandy. I just think it is amazing that they created an opera out of this. I am dying to hear the songs.

Not a Bad movie...

From http://www.inquisitr.com/135442/pic-moby-dick-not-a-porn/ August 21, 2011.

Ha ha ha ha ha Ha ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha haHa ha ha ha ha he heee hee

All-Star Superman #5 reference

Probably the most obvious modern day cultural reference to Ahab and Moby Dick would be Lex Luthor's obsession with defeating the Man of Steel.

In the comic book All-Star Superman #5 (which is mimicked almost exactly in the cartoon film version of the story), Lex Luthor says,

"Did you know that Moby-Dick can be recited at a frequency so high that it becomes a sonic drill capable of carving through solid rock?"

(Quote from the subtitles of the movie version)

The reference is of course perfect. Lex Luthor, the richest man in Metropolis, and I think the planet in the DC Universe, has a lot of ego. His pride makes it impossible for him to accept Superman seemingly lording above him. His intellect always made Luthor the best. Now an alien, a metahuman, wins the love of others. He can't stand it. He must eradicate him.

This is what makes Luthor such a good idea for a villain at the best of times. The good writers use him right. John Byrne really helped by making Luthor the ruthless business man and not the idiot portrayed by Gene Hackman in the movies.

The Ahab reference fits, and the author Grant Morrison, uses it exquisitely just to drop the hint about Ahab's obsession. Brilliant.

Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica commentaries

Messing with perfection is just a new interpretation

This article: Why mess with perfection?

Some things, like classic movies, are best left in the past-don't try to remake them
Date published: 8/5/2011

By Cathy Dyson

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2011/082011/08052011/643105/index_html?page=1

While I heartily agree that most of what Hollywood is producing nowadays are simply remakes and reworkings of old movies, I don't understand her basic premise. If you agree with her, lots of plays would never get produced, or taking it the step further, books would not be made into movies at all. (If the novel is perfect, why waste a movie?) Every age can reimagine old movies. Sometimes, interpretations can thoroughly separate one movie from another. I constantly watch new versions of Hamlet just to see how they interpret the "To be or not to be" speech as a soliloquy or monologue.

Sometimes, technology can drive movies to be made better and more interesting. Sometimes, actors really can make it different. Maybe better, maybe not, but different. And isn't that what a classic is all about--new interpretations? Would the world be the same if we left the original version of The Bourne Identity alone??

I would not call the 1956 Moby Dick untouchable. From what I have seen of the new Encore one so far, I have actually enjoyed most of it. The problem of the narrative of the novel appears fixed, although I do agree with her that "Capt. Ahab was nice, almost cheerful, most of the time. Even when he was at his worst, or best, as an obsessed stalker, he didn't seem nearly as extreme as Gregory Peck did in the original."

And yes, you are simply going to fail if your only purpose is to compare Donald Sutherland's Father Mapple with the version portrayed by Orson Welles. That's a given, for any actor, and Sutherland is pretty darn good. However, you must distance yourself, as a critic, to analyze what the version you are reviewing got right and wrong. There will always be some comparison with other versions, but notice one key byline, movie critic: "Based on the book by Herman Melville." It does not say, "Based on the 1956 movie." Key distinction there. You have to see what the movie under review accomplished. Anything else is not being fair.

Let's watch a friendly Moby Dick!

I have no idea how this ever got started. A sweet little cartoon version of the evil whale:

Apparently, the actual cartoon is still under copyright and this is someone's home movie of recording one of those old 8mm things.

I guess it is no different than later when Hannah-Barbera turned Godzilla friendly. Same exact cartoon then, really.

I just don't get the whale--is he a kid? why is he so small?

Missed second installment of Encore movie

Sorry, but I missed the second installment of the Encore mini-series. I really wanted to watch it too.

But something happened at home that caused me to miss it. End of story.

Now I have to wait until Sunday night. Not too bad, I guess.

This is just the main reason why I barely watch cable TV anymore. I only watch my stuff, like Netflix, through my Roku device. What I want, when I want--and I can pause too!

Notes for part two coming soon then...